ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 31, 1975
INN OF THE LAI4PLIGHTER,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 74—375
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION
AND
O~WEROF THE BOARD (by Dr. Odell)
On October 17, 1974, the Inn of the Lamplighter filed
a Petition Fo- Variance with the Illinois Pollution Control
Board (Board). Petitioner requested a variance from Rules
404(f) and 405 of the Board~s Water Pollution Regulations
(Chapter Three) tor the sanitary wastewater discharge from its
52-unit motel. ~ variance was sought until a sewer extension
by the Springfi?~ldSanitary District is completed and avail-
able for connection by Petitioner. The motel is located south
of Springfie1c~, Illinois, on Interstate 55. The motel has com-
plete kitchen, restaurant, and laundry facilities; and an indoor
and outdoor s~’immingpool. Depending upon the occupancy of the
motel, 10,000 to 20,000 gallons of sanitary wastewater are dis-
charged per day.
On November 14, 1974, Petitioner waived the require-
ment of Board action within ninety days as prescribed in Section
38 of the Illincis Environmental Protection Act (Act). An
Amended Petition For Variance was filed on May 27, 1975, and
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed
its Recommendation on June 30, 1975.
Petitioner installed its initial wastewater treatment
facilities in the Spring of 1970. It consisted of a septic
tank and tile field, which was approved by the Illinois Sanitary
Water Board although no permit was ever issued. Surface dis-
charges flowinq tnto a tributary stream of Lake Springfield
were discovered ~nd corrected in 1970. Similar surface dis-
charges were noticed in 1971, but no further Agency action or
investigation oc~curreduntil an inspection took place in August,
1974.
In 1973 Petitioner allegedly spent $8,000 to install
a sand filter ~ystem to help handle the load formerly carried
solely by the septic field. The sand filter system consists
of two sand-filled boxes, one measuring 6’ x 27 1/2’ and the
other S 1/2’ x 31 1/2’. The boxes provide 413 square feet of
surface area for treatment. The sand filter system is used
18
—
230
—2—
not only to receive septic tank effluent for further treatment
before discharge but also to independently treat a portion of
Petitioner’s wastewater discharge. Agency files do not reveal
that any plans and specifications were submitted for the sand
filter system although Petitioner alleges that “plans and
specifications were approved by the EPA.”
An Agency examination on August 13, 1974, revealed
that the two sand filter boxes were discharging wastewater in
concentrations in excess of the standards in Rules 404 (f) and
405 of Chapter Three. Tests conducted on August 13 and 21 re-
vealed the following levels of discharge from the Petitioner’s
facilities:
Discharge from
Distharge
8” Concrete
Maximum
from sewage tile west of
allowable Controlling
Parameter filter bed filter bed
level
P~.egu1ation
Date
8/13 8/21 8/13/74
Biochemical
Oxygen De-
mand (mg/l) 100 113
24
4
Chapter 3
(BaD5 in
Rule 404(f)
milligrams
per liter)
Suspended
Solids (mg/i) 42
56
7
5
Chapter 3
(SS in
Rule 404(f)
milligrams
per liter)
Fecal
Coiiform
Chapter 3
(per 100 ml)
103,000
400
Rule 405
“The agency inspection revealed that the surface of the boxes
contained sewage, floating sludge and sand deposits. Septic
sewage was draining through the cracks in the side walls of
the sand filters and then flowing overland to an unnamed stream
which also receives flow from an upstream pond located on the
motel grounds. This stream flows into Lake Springfield. A
second small discharge was also revealed about 15 feet west of
the above mentioned sewage sand filter discharge. This dis-
charge also ente-s the same unnamed stream to which the first
discharge enters~”
The Agency added the following comments based on its
belief that a1~ wastewater discharges are treated by the sand
filter system:
18— 231
—3—
“The flow from Petitioner’s facility into the sand filters is
estimated to be 20 gallons per minute, 12 hours per day (assum-
ing flows at Petitioner’s facility would occur mainly during
the early morning hours and in the evening). Using the above
assumption, approximately 14,400 gallons per day of sanitary
wastewater will be directed to the two sand filters, or 33.3
GPD per square foot of sand. Intermittent sand filters re-
ceiving this type of waste function properly when a flow of
3 GPD per square foot of filter area or less is maintained.
Therefore, Petitioner’s sand filter is receiving a flow 11
times in excess of its capacity.”
The Agency stated that although Petitioner rebuilt
its sand filter system in early May 1975, the boxes are still
hydraulically overloaded. An inspection on May 16 found the
filter system improved. “However, a later Agency inspection
of the facili~ies conducted June 3, 1975 revealed that the
filters were ;logged and bypassing was occurring. The re-
sults of effluent sampling conducted on May 16, 1975 are as
follows:
BOD5
-
87 mg/l
SS
—
14 mg/i
Fecal Coliform
—
105,000/100 ml
No chlorination facilities were found at the time of either
inspection.”
The Petitioner and Agency both estimated that the
City’s extension sewer, Special Assessment Project No. 80,
will be completed by August 1, 1975. Both parties believed
that Petitioner could connect within a few days of the ex-
tension’s completion. Until the connection is completed,
Petitioner proposes to keep its septic tanks and sand filters
performing at to7 efficiency. Petitioner stated that sand
filter effluent would be chlorinated.
The hardship alleged by the owners of the motel is
economic. Mr. and Mrs. Grady are the sole stockholders of
the motel, and all their income is derived from the operation
of the motel. Temporarily closing the motel would cause a
“great financial loss to the Petitioner.” The owners alleged
that business was poor d~n 1974 due to the gas crisis and that
“full occupancy this summer season is necessary for financial
survival.” No economic data were given to substantiate these
claims. Petitiofler also noted its good faith efforts in 1973
to correct the pollution problem by spending $8,000 for system
improvements. Petitioner also spent undisclosed sums in 1975
to have consulting engineers determine alternative means of
lessening the pollution problem. The engineers’ conclusions,
marked Exhibit A to the Agency Recommendation, indicated few
procedures are available to reduce discharges in the short time
before Springfield’s extension sewer is completed.
18— 232
—4—
The Agency recommended that the variance be granted
until August 15,. 1975, subject to reporting, maintenance, and
permit application conditions. The Agency concluded that up-
grading the facility, suggested by the consulting engineers
as feasible with expenditures of $3,000, would take too long
to be worthwhile. The Agency’s Recommendation was also in-
fluenced by Petitioner’s good faith. efforts, albeit “to little
avail,” in attempting to correct a problem which has existed
for many years.
We grant the variance. Petitioner has made some good
faith efforts to comply in the past, and alternative methods of
compliance are not presently viable. Although the record is
not completely clear, efforts in 1970, 1973, and 1974 seem
to indicate genuine attempts to correct the pollution problem.
Proper care of present facilities and the elimination of
laundry opera dons as suggested by the consulting engineers
provide reaso:iable means of environmewtal protection. Based
on the facts of this case, it would impose an unreasonable
hardship to deny the variance here.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and
conclusions of 1~iwof the Board.
ORDER
Petitioner is hereby granted a variance from Rules
404(f) and 405 of the Board’s Water Pollution Regulations
from October 17, 1974 until August 15, 1975, subject to the
following conditions:
a. Temporary chlorination facilities shall be in-
stalled by Petitioner to provide for the disinfection of the
existing sand filter effluent;
b. The sand filters shall be maintained daily to
provide the best possible effluent quality and service;
c. A Conditional Installation Permit shall be
obtained from the Agency for the Petitioner’s connection to the
the extension sewer, Special Assessment Project No. 80;
d. No on—site laundry operation shall be conducted
until Petitioner’s connection to the sewer extension is com-
pleted and properly operational; and
e. Witiiin 21 days of the adoption of this Order,
the Petitioner shall execute and forward to both the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, Manager, Variance Section,
Division of Water Pollution Control, Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois
62706 and the £~“1lutionControl Board a Certification of Accept-
ance and agree~aentto be bound to all terms and conditions of
this variance. The form of said certification shall be as
follows:
18— 233
—5—
CERTIFICATION
I (We) ____________________________ having read and
fully understan~ling the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board in PCB 74-375 hereby accept said Order and agree to be
bound by all of the terms and conditions thereof.
Signed __________________________
Title ___________________________
Date ____________________________
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the 3~ day of July, 1975, by a vote of
~
Christan L. Mo~fet ç~±erk
Illinois Pollution ~ntro1 Board
18—
234