Ii LINOIS POLLUTIC~

f

CONTROL BOARD

September 29,

1977

CITY

OF CRYSTAL LAKE,

A municipal

co:rporation,

~?etitioner,

PCB 77—195

ENVIRONMENTAL P ROTECT ION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION

AND ORDER

OF THE BOARD

(hr

Mu, Dumeile):

This matter

comes

before the Board on a petition for a

variance from the requirements of Rules 203(c)

and 402 of

Chapter 3: Water Pollution of the Bc~rd’s Rules

and Regulations.

Petitioner is presently unable

to

meet the

water quality standard

for phosphorus.

PetItioner operates 3

treatment plants with

a combined capacity

of

approximately 35,000

P.E.

All

3 plants have chemical storage,

feed and mixing facilities to phosphorus removal and are

capable of producing an effluent with not more than 1.0 mg/i

of phosphorus. All of these plants, therefore, comply with Rule

407(b)

which applies to these facilities.

The Board has been faced with many similar situations comparable

to Petitioner~s. (See Village of Fillmore v. EPA, PCB 76—321;

Village of S~rasburg

v.

EPA, PCB 76-324; Urbana & Champaign Sanitary

~~ic~EPA,PCB

76~295; Lake in the Hills Sanitary District v.

EPA, PCB 77~86). The economic and technf~Tfe~Tbi1it~

of compliance with Rule 203(c) is presently being reviewed in

pro-

ceedings before the Board designated as R76-l. Immediate compliance

with the present standard would impose an arbitrary and unreasonable

hardship

on Petitioner.

Petitioner has

requested a five

year variance. The Board

finds that

this period

is appropriate provided that any variance

from Rule 203(c) must terminate upon final Board action in R76-l.

The Agency has requested that a water quality study for Plant #3

be required. Most of the parameters to be studied are not sub-

jects of this variance and the study will not be required by the

Board.

It should be noted that on September 13, 1977

Petitioner filed

a request

for a

hearing

in

this matter.

Since

the

Board’s Order

grants

Petitioner

the relief it requested, the Board finds that no

hearing is needed and none shall be held.

This Opinion

constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

---

I

d4 f

,r :

sO’der

iT.

teD

Lh.t ‘Vt

0

-

rç

t

tc v

•

r

oo1~hat1

it

1

0’ 1.0 ug

.1..

$

-

J

-

(r

•

o1

-

•1

‘fig

-

‘

1

LX

at.

)

.-T-

bP

bound

c )f said

t4

a

r

‘(3

___

r

~

I

-~

•ci- ~

~c

epttrce

eadcr•

-

.1. :~

c

n

jt

~. -

j

o~derforceable.

S

llutc.n

Cc

F

.2

c?

d

I

-

-

by

-

——

4

C

/

ac-rd

is-

fly

or