ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June
6,
1974
GALESBURG SANITARY DISTRICT
)
PETITIONER
)
V.
)
PCB 74-93
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
)
RESPONDENT
)
OPINION
1~ND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Marder)
This case comes to the Board onPetition of the Galesburg San-
itary District,
filed March
14,
1974, requesting variance from
rules: 203
(f)
(ammonia nitrogen)
until May
1,
1980; 921
(d); 404
(f); and 602
(d)
(3)
of Chapter
3 of the Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions.
Supplemental information was filed by Petitioner on April 16,
1974.
The Agency filed its recommendation on May 22,
1974, suggesting
the Board deny variance from rules
203
(f), 921
(d), and 602
(d)
(3), and grant a 1-year variance from Rule 404
(f) subject to num-
erous conditions.
No hearing was held.
The Petition requests extension of a variance granted by the
Board inGalesburg Sanitary District v. Environmental Protection
Agency, PCB 73-86, June 14, 1973.
In that case the Board handed
down an order stating as follows:
ORDER
“1.
Variance is granted until June 14,
1974 from
Rule 203
(f)
as regards ammonia nitrogen.
“2.
Variance is granted from Rule 921
(d) but a Pro—
ject Completion Schedule must be submitted be-
fore June 14, 1974 showing the best anticipated
date for compliance
with
the standards.
“3.
The District shall submit
quarterly
reports
to
the
Agency
detailing
progress
in
its
pilot
plant
research
and
in
all other steps toward completion.
12—48&
—2—
“4.
The sewage treatment plant shall not be
operated at effluent levels to exceed 20
mg/i BOD and 25 mg/i suspended solids on
a monthly average.
“5.
The District shall diligently pursue cor-
rection programs for sanitary and storm
sewer overflows.
“6.
The District shall apply for an extension
to this variance at least 90 days prior to
its expiration.”
Petitioner owns and operates
.a sewage treatment plant and sewage
transportation system servicing the city of Galesburg, along with
certain surrounding unincorporated areas.
The plant provides sec-
ondary treatment through a trickling filter process and discharges
chlorinated effluent into Cedar Fork Creek, which has
a dilution
ratio
of less than one to one.
The majority of sewers are separate
storm and sanitary sewers, though certain areas are still serviced
by
combined sewers
(See decision PCB 73-86 Supra.).
In
its
recommendation
the
Agency
states
that Petitioner~sprob-
lems
in
meeting the standards resulted from the fact
that
Petition-
er became committed to an improvement program before Chapter
3 of
our Rules was
adopted,
and then could not comply with the required
dates
in
these
Rules
(Agency
Rec,
P~4).
Variance from Rule 203
(f):
Petitioner requests variance from
Rule
203
(f)
until May of 1980,
as the Rule
applies
to ammonia nitrogen.
In the original variance
Petitioner requested variance until 1977 for completion of work that
would bring it into compliance.
Now Petitioner is requesting that
this schedule be moved out three years
in
order
to
complete
infiltra-
tion~inflowanalysis studies on thei:r sewer system so
they
may
quali-
fy for federal grant money.
In fact, the above reason is given for
moving
out all compliance dates past those
originally
conceived
in
1973.
First,
it
should
be
noted by
Petitioner
that
the
Board
can
only
grant a variance
f or
one
year.
This
applies
not
only
to
this sect-
ion, but to all of the Rules in Chapter
3.
Second, the Board
had
certain reservations
as to granting variance
to Rule
203
(f)
in
the
previous matter,
In
the
previous
matter
the
Board
stated,
~We
have before
us
a variance filed March
5, 1973,
asking
for
more
time
in
which
to
do
pilot
plant
work on
ammonia,
a
year
after
the regulation wa~passed.
This
delay
has
not
been
satisfactorily ex-
plained and thus we cannot grant the ultimate relief desired which i~
until
July
1,
1977.”
Petitioner
has
submitted
in
its
present
Petition
quarterly
reports
as
to
its
progress
in
its
pilbt
plant research pro—
gram for reduction
of
ammonia
nitrogen
in
its
Attachment
#3.
These
reports were required by
the
Board in our prior opinion.
Unfortunately
these reports do not draw conclusions as to the outcome of the pilot
plant work,
or inform the Board as to whether this program is ready
for full~sca1edevelopment.
The Agency comments that they do not feel that Petitioner has made
an adequate showing as to the granting of another variance from this
Rule
(Agency Rec. P.
7).
The Board takes note of the National Pollution Discharge Elimina-
tion System, which was promulgated
by
the Federal Government in amend—
merits to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972
(PL 72-500),
When this system is implemented by the Board, the Agency will be
allowed to issue permits that will allow compliance past the dates in
our Regulations, should there be the proper showing.
As the NPDES system will be implemented by the end of this year,
we feel that
a complete general review of the Petitioner’s situation
would be most advantageous at that time,
This kind of review will
:be~ nedessary for Petitioner to get its NPDES permit.
The Board will
grant Petitioner a variance from Rule 203
(f)
until December
31, 1974,
~r
toe atosementioned reasoss
Stould Petithorer feel at recessarR
to file for a sutsequent variance, results of its pi.lot program re-
search
and. a tentative schedule of construction must be submitted,
should the program prove up an acceptab.e
method of compliance.
Variance_from Rule 921
(d)
VAriance from Rule 902
(d)
(3)
:
Th,e variance recruested from this Rule is dismissed,
Petitioner
hi ant
sorilply
~ith
tan
this untal December
ii,
i975
ariance from Rule 404 (r~
The effective date of this Rule as applied to Petitioner has been
•moved out until December 31,
1974, by new Rule 409
Sin~cethis vaan
Iaries shall
i.e given only until that date, variance from Rule 404
(f)
:Ls dismissed as premature.
Environmental impact:
The Board notes that on Page
4 of the Agency’s recommendation,
there is
a comment relating to sludge deposits and septic odors in
Ce:&ar Fork Creek.
Ehould it be necessary for Petitioner to apply for
anre variance the Board sball recruire a report on this condition,
cong with a proqram for its prompt abatement,
The plant will be ord-
ered to continue
to• keep ROD and susmended solids below the 20
mo/i—
5 mg/i level ordered in PCB. 73-86,
e
3oard notes tie problems diecussed abbve as to Petitioner ‘s
—4
program being started before it knew of applicable regulations, and
of the funding problems it is having.
Petitioner appears to have had
a long—standing policy of attempting compliance.
As mentioned above, the NPDES program will be coining into effect
before the end of this year.
An NPDES permit application will bring
about a complete review of Petitioner’s situation and will result
in
a new compliance schedule.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of
law
of
the
Board.
ORDER
IT
IS
THE ORDER of the Pollution Control
Board
that:
1)
Requests
for variance
from Rules
404
(f),
602
(d)
(3)
and
921
(d)
are dismissed.
2)
Request
fOr Variance from Rule 2Q3
(f)
as
it
applies
to
ammonia
nitrogen is
granted
until December 31,
1974.
3)
The District shall continue to submit quarterly reports
to the
Agency,
detailing
progress and conclusions
in its
pilot plant research
and in all other steps
toward com:~
pletion.
4)
The
sewage
treatment
plant
shall
not
be
operated
at
efEn
luent
levels
to
exceed
20
mg/i
and
25
mg/i
suspended
solids
on
a
monthly
average.
5)
The
District
shal:L continue
to
pursue
diligently
cor~
rection
programs for sanitary
and
storm
sewer
overflows.
I, thristan L. Moffett,
Clerk
c~f:~the Illinois Pollution Contra:.
Board,
certify
that
the
above Opinion and Order
was
adopted by the
Board on the
~
day of
~
1974, by a
vote
of
4.~
to
12
—
455