ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February

17,

1972

GLENN

AND

CLARAM~E

YOUNKER

)

71—361

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Lloyd

 F. Latendresse,

 for Glenn and C1aramae Younker

Larry

 R. Eaton, for the Environmental Protection Agency

Opinion of

 the. Board

 (by Mr.

 Currie):

Mr.

 & Mrs. Younker operate

 a mobile home park at the Village of

Blue Mound,

not

far

frc~xn

Decatur.

 Sewage frornthe occupied sites in

the 37—site park is treated in

 a single—stage lagoon, with

intermittent effluent flowing ultimately

 to the Sangamon River.

In the summer of 1971 the Younkers submitted plans to the Agency

for constructing two additional lagoons

 in order to meet

the

July,

 1972 requirements of

 4 mg/i BOD and

 5 mg/i suspended solids

(Rules

 and Regulations SWB-l4).

 The permit was denied

 for several

deficiencies

 in the plans, most notably

 a failure to provide

for removal of algae under

 the revised Agency guidelines 20-24.

The Younkers seek

 a variance to permit them to retain

tkeir present system because of the possibility that the Village

may provide municipal treatment within the next

 few years and

render any present investment obsolete.

 The evidence establishes

that the

 \‘lllage applied some

 time ago for federal aid funds for

this $900,000 prc4ect; that the federal government put the re-

quest on the back burner for want

 of funds and

 a low priority;

that the application was recently reactivated after

 some degree

of encouragement from federal officials; but

 that there is no

assurance even now of federal funds

 and that the Village will

not proceed without them.

 At best the municipal plant could

not be in operation much before the end of 1973,

 and the estimate

of the city’s engineer is that about

 two years would be required

after federal money became available.

 The petitioners

 colicede

that the Village plant at this stage is mere conjecture,

and

in

the absence of

 a firmer program we cannot simply allow an indefinite

pass from the treatment requirements.

 As the Agency

 says,

it

may be years before any municipal treatment

 is provided.

For

want of

 a firm program for municipal treatment the variance re-

quest for

 a total exemption from SWB-l4 must be denied.

Cf.

York Center

v.

 EPA,

 #72-7

 (Jan.

17,

 1972); Flintkote Co.

 v. EPA,

#71—68

 (Nov.

11,

 1971).

 If federal funds have since become available

and

 a firm program developed,

 a new petition may be

 filed.

—

643

Recognizing the above deficiency

 in their case,

 the petitioners

ask

 in the alternative that we allow disposition of effluent from

the existing lagoon on the land,

 suggesting that both runoff ~tnd

percolation can be controlled so as to avoid pollution.

The

estimated

cost

this

improvement

$5000

compared

with

 over

$20,000

for

the

lagoons

originally

proposed

and

$40,000

meet

the

EPA’s

conditiQns,

$15,000

 which would be

 for algae

control.

 The Agency rejected

 a prior proposal

for

 spraying on

the ground that insufficient information had been submitted

but now invites a resubmission

 of data,

 less detailed than that

originally specified,

 adequate to show that runoff and percolation

will not

 be problems.

 If such can be proved,

 no variance would be

needed for

 the spraying operation,

 since the effluent standards

would be met.

The

 sole need for

 a variance

 is with respect

to the deadlines

 for submission of plans

 and award of contracts,

and possibly, depending on the schedule which

 is not in the

present record, also

 a brief extension of the date

 for ultimate

compliance.

 The petitioners agree that the spraying system

is

economically reasonable,

 and we think

 in view of

 the Agency’s

revised algae requirement, which made deficient the original

plans submitted in good

 faith,

 the petitioners

 are entitled

to

 a month in which to submit plans

for

 the spray system.

Should that system be rejected, we will give the petitioners

thirty days after adoption of our pending regulations #R7l-14,

which may modify the algae requirement in their case,

 to submit

plans

 for an alternative system that will comply with

 the revised

regulation.

 A schedule

 for construction shall be filed with

the plans, and upon approval by

 the Agency of one

 or the other

system the petitioners shall apply for modification of this order,

if necessary,

 to permit the completion of construction at

 a time

not long after July,

 1972.

ORDER

A variance

 is hereby granted to Glenn and Claramae Younker

from the SWB-l4 interim deadlines for submission of plans and

award of contracts

 to meet the requirements

of

 4 mg/l BOD and

5 mg/i suspended solids, provided the following conditions

are

met:

1)

 Plans

 for a spray disposal system shall-be submitted to

the Agency within

 30 days after receipt

 of this

 order,

together with sufficient information to enable the

Agency to determine that such system will not cause

pollution of surface or ground waters,

 and with

a

schedule

 for construction of such system in

 the shortest

practicable time;

and

—

644

the

Agency

disapproves

 such plans, petitioners

shall submit, within

 30 days after such denial or

after adoption by this Board of applicable effluent

standards

 in #R71--14, whichever

is

 later, plans and

a

schedule for constructing facilities to comply with

such effluent standard within the shortest practicable

time;

and

3)

 Upon Agency approval pf plans submitted pursuant to

conditions

1)

or

2)

 of this order,

 the petitioners

shall promptly

 seek any modification of this order

that may be necessary to allow construction

 to be

completed after July,

 1972.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, certify

that the Board adopted the above Opinion this

/7

~

 day of

February,

 1972 by a vote of

~-~L

—

645