ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL BOAI

February

2,

1978

VILLAGE OF WAUCONDA,

Petitioner,

V.

PCB 77—191

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

~4r.Goodman)

This matter comes before

tha

llution Control

Board upon

the petition filed by the

Vi11ao~of

Wauconda

(Wa~iconda) on

July 13,

1977,

seeking variance

loom

Rule 404(f)

(ii)

~A)

of th~

Water Pollution Regulations,

Chapt~

3 of the

Board~s

Rules

and

Regulations.

The Agency

filed it~

:~ecorpJnendatj~

on October

24,

1977.

Hearings were held on

o~oember

~

and

13,

1977,

in

the Village of Wauconda, Lake

County,

Illinois,

Several

citizen

witnesses testified.

Wauconda seeks a variance from Rule 404(f)

so

that it may

discharge effluent containing levels of BOD5 and suspended

solids

which exceed those specified while

it upgrades its facilities.

Wauconda discharges its effluent to Bangs Lake Drain Creek which

flows for approximately two miles before discharging to Slocum

Lake.

Slocum Lake discharges to the Fox River.

Wauconda’s sewage treatment facilities are designed

for a

population load of 8,000 PE, and the current population

load is

6,000 PE.

Because Bangs Lake Creek is a low flow stream,

Wa~iconda~s

NPDES Permit and Rule 404(f) required the effluent from

its sewage

treatment facilities to meet BOD and SS limitions

of

4 and ~

mg/I,

respectively.

However, Waucond&s existing facility is

incapable

of complying with these limitations.

Therefore,

in

its Petition,

29

—

153

---

—2—

Wauconda

proposes to expand and upgrade its treatment plant from

8,000 PE

to 12,000 PB.

Wauconda contends that,

although the up-

graded facility will be unable to consistently meet 4/5 mg/i,

it

will be

capable of meeting the 10/12 mg/i standard which would

apply if

Wauconda secures a Pfeffer Exemption or a variance from

Rule 404(f).

Wauconda applied to the Agency for a Pfeffer exemption on

April

8,

1977.

On May

2,

1977,

the Agency denied the application

because

Wauconda had failed to demonstrate that its effluent would

not

result in dissolved oxygen water quality violations in Slocum

Lake,

which is expected to receive the majority of the deoxygen-

ating

wasteload.

The Agency also indicated its reservations as

to whether

any type of conceptual analysis could accurately predict

the

impact of Wauconda’s effluent on Slocum Lake without expensive

and time

consuming field verification.

Wauconda has already

obtained a

variance from the Board to discharge phosphorus in

excess

of the standards,

Wauconda currently contributes fifty—two

percent

(52)

of the phosphorus load to Slocum Lake.

Upon

comple-

tion of

construction, Wauconda will meet a phosphorus limit of 1.0

mg/I

and can be expected to contribute 26.3 percent of the total

load to

Slocum Lake,

if discharge remains to the lake.

Slocum Lake

is

nitrogen limited

(See Respondent’s Ex.

1).

The

central issue raised

in this

matter

is whether allowing

Wauconda

to upgrade and expand

its

facilities and continue to

discharge

to Bangs Lake Creek and ultimately to Slocum Lake will

cause

or contribute to a violation of the dissolved oxygen water

quality

standard in Slocum

Lake.

A study performed by U.S. EPA

in 1973

and published in 1975 indicates that Slocum Lake is

highly

eutrophic (Respondent~sEx.

1).

A fishery biologist with

the

Department of Conservation testified during the hearings

that there

is much blue-green

algae

in Slocum Lake,

that there

have been

many fish kills and that the predominant fish in the

lake is

carp, an indication of degraded conditions.

Even the

carp die

off occasionally (R.6l~64). Another witness at the

hearing

with a specialty in fisheries testified as to the eutro-

phic nature of Siocum Lake

(R.71).

The

Agency testified at hearing that even meeting a 10/12

mg/I BOD

and SS standard,

1.5

ammonia nitrogen standard and 1.0

phosphorus

standard will not prevent Wauconda’s facilities from

causing

or contributing to a violation of the dissolved oxygen

water

quality standard in Slocum Lake

(R.52,

Sec.

13).

The

Agency

testified that even this reduced amount of nutrient addi-

tion

will continue to spur algae and other plant growth in the

29

—

154

---

—3—

lake,

which is the primary basis for eutrophication and thus

depletion of dissolved oxygen

(R.52,

Sec.

13).

Two witnesses

testified that even eliminating the sewage treatment plant dis-

charge

to the Lake would not solve the eutrophication problem

(R,62,

76, Sec.

6),

The Agency outlined the alternatives open to Wauconda as:

1.

expand and upgrade the existing treatment plant

to meet 10/12 mg/l of BOD and suspended solids

respectively, with continued discharge of efflu-

ent to Banks Lake Creek and Slocum Lake;

2.

construct an interceptor sewer

to

transport

Wauconda’s wastewater to the proposed regional

Island Lake plant; thereafter, abandon the

Wauconda treatment plant;

3.

expand and upgrade the existing treatment plant

but construct an outfall sewer around Bangs Lake

Creek and Slocum Lake with direct discharge to

the Fox River.

A fourth alternative, diversion of the overflow from Bangs Lake

Creek along with the STP effluent into the Fiddle Lake marsh

before it enters the Slocum Lake drain, was presented at the

hearing by the Lake and McHenry Council of Governments

(LAMCOG).

However,

the environmental and financial implications of this

alternative have not been fully studied, and Wauconda strongly

opposes this alternative because of the overflow it could create

onto property adjacent to Fiddle marsh and because of potential

litigation from persons with riparian rights in Slocum Lake.

A consultant to the Village of Wauconda testified about

the difference in cost between the three alternatives outlined

in the Agency’s Recommendation.

He indicated that upgrading

and expansion alone would cost Wauconda $2,125,000

in capital

expenditures plus $85,000 for annual maintenance.

Upgrading

and expansion plus construction of an outfall sewer around Bangs

Lake Creek and Slocum Lake with direct discharge to the Fox

River would cost Wauconda $2,650,000 plus $90,000 annually for

maintenance.

Finally, transporting Wauconda’s sewage to the pro-

posed regional Island Lake plant would cost Wauconda $3,560,000

29— 155

---

—4—

plus $77,000 annually.

The figures are detailed in Petitioner~s

Exhibits

5,

6 and 7.

The Board agrees that the condition of Slocum Lake requires

that Wauconda, at some point, route its effluent to an outfall

sewer that bypasses Slocum Lake.

The Fox River, although itself

polluted, can better handle Wauconda’s effluent than can a very

shallow, relatively quiescent lake such as Slocum Lake.

The

Board finds that, based upon Wauconda’s present cost estimates,

construction of an outfall sewer to a tributary to the Fox River

is a more cost-effective means of bypassing Slocum Lake than

regionalizing its wastewater treatment with the Island Lake plant.

Wauconda is unable to meet even a 10/12 BOD and SS standard

prior

to upgrading and expansion of its facilities.

Wauconda’s

discharge Monitoring Reports indicate BOD levels ranging from 19

to 26 and suspended solids levels ranging from 17 to 22,

The

record herein indicates that Wauconda has been diligent in its

efforts to achieve compliance.

Therefore,

the Board finds that

denial of the requested variance would constitute an arbitrary and

unreasonable hardship.

Hbwever, the Board will impose as a condi-

tion of the variance a requirement that Wauconda begin and complete

construction of an outfall sewer to a tributary to the Fox River

as soon as funds become available but in no event later than three

years from the date of this Order,

The variance will be granted

for three years.

The Board recognizes that Wauconda’s financial

situation may prevent it from completing construction of the out-

fall sewer within three years.

Should Wauconda need more time,

it

can apply to the Board for a variance.

The Board will also impose

as conditions to the variance a requirement that Wauconda meet

interim BOD and SS limits of 30/30 mg/I and that Wauconda, as

agreed, install and utilize nitrification equipment,

acceptable to

the Agency, at its new plant.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board in this matter.

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that Wauconda

be granted a variance from Rule 404(f)

of Chapter

3:

Water

Pollution, until February 2,

1981,

subject to the following condi-

tions:

29

—

156

---

mrnediately begin to

a exIsting sewage

2.

Lha~

S

C

~

ent d

soJ~

3.

tra

txea

not

ri urtil construction

a

3hall limit its efflu—

~ nj/I BOD and

suspended

i

s upgraded sewage

a

s effluent shall

LOD and SS, respectively;

4.

tha

ecu ~

pIn

d utilize nitrification

the Agency,

at its new

5,

1

of

a

Sb

tarn

atai

b~

6.

tat

Age

t

~C

J

~d complete construction

a.

Bangs Lake Creek and

Juagn to an unnamed tribu—

-

a soon as funds

become

ye

Later than three

~hia Order;

a~m~annually to the

ability to install

I

fled in paragraph

7.

Wa

Lfl~

V

t~

a

p

~

S

I

(We)

underst~dT7I

prior

of this Order,

hall execute and

s

Er vironmental

hurcnill Road,

706 and the Pollution

i~cttiun

of Aoceptance

o

to all teams and

The 45 day

period

~ce daring any period

~c

led,

The form of

L

be as follows:

having

read and

fully

c’s Pollution Control Board

1.

tha

upga

a

treat. a

3

~1

---

—6—

in PCB 77-191 hereby accept said

Order and agree

to be bound

by all of the terms and conditions

thereof.

TITLE

DATE_____________________________

I, Christan L. Moffett,

Clerk of

the Illinois

Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion

and

Order

were a~1optedon

the~AI~~__day

of

,

1978

by a vote

of

-s_p

Christan L. MoffetV,

erk

Illinois Pollution

rol Board