ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January 21,
1q81
‘TILi,AGE
OF
LENA,
Petitioner,
V.
)
PCB 81—162
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION AUD ORDER OF THE
BOARD
(by J.
1), Dume11e)~
The Village of Lena
(Village) filed a petition for varianc’~
on October 19, 1981,
requesting relief from effluent limitations
in its NPDES permit
for its wastewater treatment plant
(WTP),
An
amended petition was filed
on November
5,
1981,
and the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed its recommendation
that the variance be granted to the extent allowed by federal
law
and subject to certain conditions.
This recommendation was
accompanied by
a motion to file instanter,
which motion
is hereby
granted.
Hearing was waived and none was held,
The Board in general will not order modification of UPD~S
permit conditions
in a variance proceeding,
However,
it will
construe the variance as requesting relief from Rule 404(c) of
Chapter 3~ Water Pollution,
as
it relates
to fi~ie—daybiochemical
oxygen demand
(BOD5)
and total
suspended solids
(TSS).
The Village owns and operates
a WTP which serves approximately
2,000 persons and became operational
in July,
1975.
IL c~risistH
of
a
raw sewage inlet structure with a flow meter,
two primary
clarifiers, one single stage rotary distributor trickling filter,
one secondary clarifier, one effluent holding lagoon,
four movi~q
bed filters,
one chlorinator,
two anaerobic digesters,
and
two
sludge drying beds.
Plant design
is for 3,600
P.E. and 0.4 mii.Lt~n
gallons per day
(MGD).
Discharge
is
to an unnamed tributary of
Yellow Creek, which in
turn
is
tributary
to
the
Pecatonica
River.
?~ctualdischarge has averaged about 0.2 MGD.
Agency inspection reports dating hack to April
12, 1976
indicate problems with the moving bed filters.
Operation of
these
filters
is initiated by two 160 gallon per minute lagoon pumps
which
take suction from the lagoon and pump the water
to the
inflijent chamber,
Flows then enter a mixing chamber where
polymer and alum are added
and.
mixed
before the flow enters the
moving bed filter,
Through
a series of
pumps,
the dirty filter
sand is cut off the face of the
filter,
washed and replaced in
the filter bed.
This entire process
is automatic.
Prior to th~
45—149
—2—
Village’s removal
of the moving bed filters from operation on or
about June
5,
1981,
only
the two west filters were in operation
because parts
from
the two east filters were being used
to
keep
the west units
in operation.
This was done
in conjunction with
the filing of
a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the moving
filter bed and the contractor.
That
lawsuit was settled in August,
1981, hut the record does not indicate whether the beds are now
in operation.
The Village was issued NPDES Permit No.
1L0024945 on
June
2,
1977, with an expiration date of February
1,
1982,
which
requires
the
Village to meet
the
following
effluent
limitations
Parameter
~
L~yAv9.
BOD
10
15
TSS5
12
18
The
Village
is
also
required
to
monitor
and
report
to
the
agency
regarding
BODr
and
TSS
effluent
concentrations.
The
most
recent
reports
are
sdmmarized
below~
Flow
(MGD)
BOD5
(mg/i)
TSS
(mg/i)
Month
~~Max.
Avq.
Max.
Avg.
Max.
June, 1931
0.19
0.245
15
21
17
2.5
May,
1981.
0.215
0.285
18
20
14
19
April,
1981
0.21
0.29
29
31
34
36
‘larch,
1.981
0.2
0.33
22
——
12
——
February,
1981
0.205
0,3
45
26
—~
January,
1981
0.2
0.295
23
18
——
Improvements to the Village’s facility,
including the moving
bed filters,
were constructed pursuant to funding under the
construction grants program.
While construction was completed
some
time
ago,
final payment has not been made because
of problems
with the moving bed filters.
The United States Environmental
Protection Agency
(USEPA) has initiated a study to determine the
feasibility of repairing the moving bed filters.
It
is not known
whether this study has been completed.
If repair is not possible,
the Village will have
to go back
into Step
2 of the grants progra~i
for design of new tertiary treatment facilities.
Currently,
the
Village’s priority number
is such that funds
for Steps
2 and
3
would not be available;
however,
it
is felt that due
to
the
nature
o~the Village’s problem special consideration could b’~made.
The Agency argues that the Board is powerless
to grant
a variance in this case including BOD5 and TSS limitations
in
excess of
30 mg/i
in that these limitations are federally
mandated by Section 301(b)(1)(B)
of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act
(FWPCA)
and 40 CFR Section 133.102(a)
and
(h),
and that the State
is bound by them.
While
it
is possible
for the Village to be exempted from these standards by Section
301(i)(1)
of the FWPCA,
and it has made
a timely application
for such exemption,
the Aqency alleges that no such exemption
45—150
—3—
can he
granted
until
a determination is made that the corrective
measures necessary for compliance
are grant eligible.
That
determination, however, has not been made.
The Board need not decide whether the
Agency~s
inter-
pretation of the FWPCA sections
is correct in this case, however,
in that the Viilage~sdischarge data indicate that the granting
oF
30 mg/i limitations for BOD5 and
TSS should he sufficient
to place the Village
in substantial compliance.
The
Village
presents
several
alternative solutions to its
Eilter bed problem
if repair
is not possible, hut has not yet
decided
what
course to follow and exact costs cannot be
calculated.
However,
the
Village~s estimate of $1,242,200
is
reasonable
according
to
personnel
from
the Agency~sGrant
Administration Section.
The Villagers share of this cost would
he $310,550
if a 75
share
is grant—funded, or $186,300 if an 85
share
is grant—funded, depending upon whether
it
i~considered a
failure of
a unique technology.
Were it possible to
renovate t’~e
existing moving bed filters,
the Agency estimates that the cost
of compliance would be considerably less; perhaps
in
the
S120,000
range,
hut this amount would not he grant eligible.
The
Board
finds that denial
of the requested variance would
constitute a financial hardship, and since the Agency has foun~i
no stream degradation due to the Village~sdischarge, this
hardship would be arbitrary and unreasonable.
The
Village requests variance
until grant funds are
made
available and tertiary treatment facilities
are constructed.
However, such construction may not be necessary.
Further,
if
it
is necessary there
is no showing that they will
be completed
within five years which is the maximum
variance period.
Therefore,
the Board will follow the Agency~srecommendation and grant variance
until March
1,
1984,
This Opinion constitutes the Board~sfindings
of fact and
conclusions
of
law in this
matter.
ORDER
1.
The Village of Lena is hereby granted a variance from
Pule
404(c)
of Chapter 3:
Water Pollution,
sub~iectto the
following conditions:
a.
This variance shall expire on March
1,
1984, or upon attaining operation of any new tertiary
treatment facility, or upon attaining operation of
renovated moving bed filters, whichever occurs first;
h.
In the event that the USEPA study concludes
that renovation of
the moving bed filters
is possible,
the Village shall expeditiously undertake all actions
necessary to achieve such renovation;
45—151
—4—
c.
During the period of this variance, the
Village’s effluent shall not exceed
30 mg/l BOD,~or
30 mg/l total suspended solids as a monthly average.
d.
The Village shall provide the best
practicable operation and maintenance
at
its WTP.
2.
The Illinois Environmental Agency shall modify the
Village’s NPDES Permit No.
1L0024945 in a manner consistent with
this Order pursuant to Rule 914 of Chapter
3.
CERTIFICATE
I,
(We),
___________
,
having read
the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in PCB
81-162
dated January 21,
1982,
understand
and accept the said Order,
realizing that such acceptance
renders all terms and conditions
thereto binding and enforceable.
Petitioner
By:
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan
L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order
was adopted on the
~
day of
~
1981 by a
vote
of
~.
C,
Illinois Pollu
Control Board
45—152