ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January 24, 1974

PUTNAM COUNTY SCHOOLS

)

(Community Unit School District No. 535)

)

)

)

v.

)

PCB 73-463

)

)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

)

)

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Dumelie):

Petition was filed on November 2, 1973 for variance from

Rule 1002 of the Water Pollution Regulations in order to file a

new project completion schedule. The petition states that sewage

treatment plant improvements, estimated to cost up to $45,000,

were bid at $56,323 on October 10, 1973 and this single bid was

rejected by the Board of Education on October 15, 1973 because

of the lack of funds available in the current budget.

The facility for which variance is requested is the John

Swaney Attendance Center in McNabb, Putnam County. The School Dis-

trict proposes the following time schedule after rebidding

the sewage treatment plant upgrading along with other school

construction work in November or December, 1973.

Contracts Awarded:

January, 1974

Start Construction:

April, 1974

Complete Construction: September, 1974

Full Operation:

September, 1974

The Environmental Protection Agency filed its recommendation

for denial on November 29, 1973. No public hearing was held. The

Agency states that downstream of the John Swaney Attendance Center

the stream accepting the effluent (Clear Creek) “is visibly polluted

downstream of Petitioner’s discharge (with visible evidence of

sludge

and

algal mats present) in violation of Rule 203(a) of

Chapter 3.” Rule 203(a) is the ‘~freedoms”rule and states

• . .

all waters of the State shall

meet the following standards:

(a) Freedom from unnatural sludge or bottom deposits,

floating debris, visible oil, odor, unnatural plant

or algal growth, unnatural color or turbidity,

11 —43

---

-2-

or matter in concentrations or combinations

toxic or harmful to human, animal, plant or

aquatic life of other than natural origin.

The Agency also states that the required standards are

30 mg/i BOI) and 37 mg/i suspended solids of Rule 404(a) and the

400/100 ml ~ecal coliform standard of Rule 405. No specific

compliance date is given by the Agency and we must assume it

to have been July 1, 1972 as given in Rule 404(a). The Agency

goes on to state that the School District has qualified under

Rule 404(f) (ii) and is thus required to meet 10 mg/i BOD and

12 mg/i suspended solids (by December 31, 1973 presumabl~).

Grab sample data by the Agency is given for four dates

between October 1972 and April 1973 and the Agency assertion is

that these indicate a failure to meet the old 30/37 standard.

We reject this contention since Rule 404(h) clearly states

Compliance with the numerical standards in

this Rule 404 shall be determined on the basis

of 24-hour composite samples averaged over any

consecutive 30-day period.

Since “grab samples” are not “24-hour composite samples”

no weight can be given the Agency statement. However, we point

out that monthly reports on the effluent were lacking in BOD and

suspended solids data, according to the Agency.

The Agency alleges that the school has a cracked digester

tank which leaks into the aeration system thus disrupting the

plant efficiency; an inoperable pump on the hypochiorinator,

and the lack of a certified operator. The Agency raises the

question of delay by the School District between July 2, 1973

when its permit was issued and October 10, 1973 when bids were

opened. Delay, if self imposed, may be grounds for rejection

of a variance (See Texaco

v.

EPA, PCB 73-14, October 11, 1973)

Finally the Agency asks for evidence that additional funds to

cover the rejected bid were not available.

The School District, on December 6, 1973 filed a

Response to Report of the Agency. The District answers some

of the Agency questions in stating that they did not know

what tests were required in the monthly reports; that the budget

reflects operating expense and does not provide for large over-

expenditures; that the hypochlorinator pump has a new motor

ordered and finally, that a certified operator has been hired

to replace the former one who retired. The District’s architect

also takes the blame for the delay in solicitingcontractors

and

issuing

plans.

11

—

44

---

-3-

On December 20, 1973 the Pollution Control Board issued an order

requesting additional information as to why the cracked digester

tank could not be repaired immediately; the status of bids; the

source of funds; and the feasibility, if any, of connecting to a

nearby municipal sewage treatment plant. A reply was received

January 16, 1974 stating that the digester repairs are included

in the new bid package for the sewage plant; that bid specifications

went out December 31, 1973 for four school building projects

and the sewage plant work and that bids will be opened February 20,

1974; that any additional funds (over $45,000) would have to come

from next year’s tax levy; and that the school is in a rural

area 2-1/2 miles from the nearest town which is on a higher

level than the school.

We are impressed by the School District’s evident good

faith in answering both the Agency’s and Board’s questions

promptly and completely. Actions have been taken on the chlorinator,

on the operator and on the reporting requirements. We urge the

Agency to review its monthly operating reports as received from

other sewage plants and to move more promptly to explain what is

required when data are missing. The delay in this case is

caused by the District’s agent, the architect, and thus is not

a defense.

We grant the variance until September 30, 1974 from Rule 1002

and from the compliance dates set forth in the Project Completion

Schedule. No performance bond will be required since the District

appears to be aware of the necessity for prompt compliance.

This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of facts

and conclusions of law.

ORDER

1. Variance is granted until September 30, 1974 from Rule 1002

of the Water Pollution Regulations and from the compliance

dates set forth in the Project Completion Schedule for the

John Swaney Attendance Center.

2. The petitioner is-to furnish monthly operating reports on

its existing sewage treatment plant with all data to be

provided as required by the Agency.

IT IS SO ORIJERED.

I, Chris-tan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pbllution Control

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted on

the

~)~/~‘

day of January, 1974 by a vote of ..?—O

Illinois Pollution C rol Board