58-499

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June 29,

1984

VILLAGE OF ATWOOD,

)

Petitioner,

v.

)

 PCB 84—49

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by B.

 Forcade):

On April

 19, 1984, the Village of Atwood (“Atwood”)

 filed a

Petition for Variance, and on May 14,

 1984, an amended petition,

seeking relief from Board regulations,

 35 Ill. Mm. Code 304.120,

304.121 and 306.305,

 establishing effluent limitations

 for 5—day

biochemical oxygen demand

 (“BOD

“),

 total suspended solids, fecal

coliform and precluding treatment plant bypass.

 Atwood seeks

short—term relief,

 until December

 31, 1984, intending to file for

a long term variance

 at that time, once interim operational data

is evaluated and a full compliance plan is finalized.

 On June 8,

1984,

 the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”)

recommended grant of variance,

 with conditions.

 No hearing was

held, no comments were received.

Atwood is

 located in Douglas and Piatt counties in Central

Illinois.

 Atwood’s population is 1,464; the Village employs

several full—time employees, one of whom is assigned to the care

 of the water and wastewater plant.

 The Atwood Wastewater

Treatment Plant is a Walker Process activated sludge package

plant.

 The plant is operated in the contact stabilization mode.

The package plant is designed to provide contact aeration,

clarification, chlorination,

 sludge re—aeration and aerobic

digestion,

 Besides the package plant,

 the process consists of an

influent pump station, a sludge lagoon for waste sludge, and a

control building housing blowers, chlorination equipment, and a

laboratory.

Dry weather flow to the wastewater treatment plant is raw

sewage, primarily domestic in nature.

 Commercial establishments

discharging to the sewers are typical establishments

that serve a

small Central Illinois rural town with a population between 1,000

and 2,000.

 A small volume locker plant also discharges its

wastewater into the Village sewers.

Wet weather flows exceeding plant capacity are encountered

frequently in the Atwood sewer

 system.

 Currently these

excess

flows are not quantified.

 High flows continue for days

58-499

—2—

following rainfall, creating hydraulic overloading and solids

washout

 at. the treatment plant.

Treated. effluent from the plant is discharged into Lake

Fork,

 a tributary of the Kaskaskia River.

 Lake Fork joins

the Kaskaskia

River

approximately six miles southwest of

Atwood upstream of Lake Shelbyville.

 The Kaskaskia River

discharges into the Mississippi.

The

 7 day—lO year low flow

of the Lake Fork is zero (Pet.,

pp.

 2—3).

Atwood’s present NPDES permit establishes the following

interim effluent limitations

 for the treatment plant:

£v~.

Monthly Avg.

 Weekly Avg.

20 mg/l

 40 mg/l

25

mg/l

 45 mg/l

Daily max.

 not to exceed 400/100 ml

6 to

 9 std. units

13.100

($is~

BOD

Fecal. Coliforms

pH

Discharge Monitoring

weekly data

 (Pet., p.

5):

results from Atwood show the following

—________

*0-10-03

3$-.25-43

13-2.18

*1-50-10

11.47.43

11—21—31

U~5-31

U..0ó—18

10-13-43

22.1043

33-5.43

10.01-24

—

~IaT

EFfl00WT

~J,

*30

*00

0104

*50

000

3*41

116

o~

330

*01

1141

500~

514

lId’

C.14~e.~

~/1

~l1

ste. ws$t~

I/I~*

110.000

7.0

50.000

1.4

.OX

7.7

31.000

7.1

110,000

7.1

000.000

7.6

7.5

s

7.)

31.500

1.1

11.500

7.5

5,550

P.0

110.010

01-10.40

01-7~-50

4340-11

50.31-31

50.07-U

5044-01

*0.21-5*

00-24-54

50.31.40

04-

53-31.44

00-V-Il

131

*31

130

flO

*00

*30

310

*04

310

31,050

7.5

31.310

7.7

45.0041

7.7

‘*0.500

7.0

*50

7.0

131.5041

3.7

‘

KB.KB

7.7

35.050

1~.5

7.0

1,500

*0.010

•

*31.050

5*51.

5041

0.2

•

*00.000

1*1

7.3

100

58-500

Discharge Monitoring Reports were not submitted to the

Agency

 for May through September of 1983

 (Rec,, p.

5),

 Presently,

Atwood does not have a certified Class

 2 operator, as required,

nor an approved contractual arrangement with an appropriate

operator

 (Rec.,

p.

6),

 Atwood has not made formal application for

construction grant funding, although a preapplication has been

submitted

 (Rec., p.

5).

 During a February 17, 1984 visit, the

Agency cited 12 specific problems as evidence of poor operation

and maintenance

 (Rec.,, p.

3).

 Atwood admits the plant has not

been operated well in the recent past (Pet,,

 p. 4),

Atwood has no present plan for compliance with existing

permit limitations,

 Atwood has recently undertaken several steps

to improve the operation and maintenance of its treatment plant.

During the term of this variance,

 Atwood proposes to evaluate the

changes in effluent quality resulting from these improvements, plan

additional

 improvements to meet existing and future limitations,

and apply for a long—term variance with a specific compliance

program

 (Pet,, p.

8).

 Atwood expects minimal environmental impact

from grant of variance because recently completed plant changes

should improve effluent quality compared to historical data,

and

average flows

 in the receiving stream provide dilution of effluent

of 200 to 1

 (Pet.,

p.

8).

The Agency asserts, however, that consideration should be given

to impacts during

 low stream flow periods, noting that there were

two 7-day periods of zero flow in Lake Fork in September,

 1982.

Nevertheless, the Agency feels that the potential environmental

harm is best minimized by the imposition of the specific

conditions recommended, which “provide a reasonable basis for

expediting compliance from the current time forward”

 (Agency

Rec.

 7, 8).

In response to Atwood’s claim that that immediate compliance

would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship on its limited

financial resources,

 the Agency acknowledged the hardship associated

with immediate compliance, but correctly points out that the

Petitioner’s failure to take earlier corrective action is largely

a self—imposed hardship.

 The Board notes that had there been a

prompt enforcement effort by the Agency, such a long record of

non—compliance would not exist today.

 The Agency recommended as

a condition that Atwood be required to file any further petition

for variance by September 30,

 1984.

 While the Board will not

require this as a condition of this variance, the Board alerts

Atwood to the potential exposure to enforcement if a variance

petition is not timely filed,

The

 Board finds that, on balance, to require Atwood’s immediate

compliance would impose an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship.

The

Board will grant Atwood a variance, until December 31,

 1984,

 from the

relevant regulations.

 This Opinion constitutes the l3oard4s findings

of fact and conclusions of law in this matter,

—4—

ORDER

The

Village of Atwood is hereby granted a variance for its

wastewater treatment plant,

 from the provisions of 35

 Ill. Adm.

Code 304.120,

 304.121 and 306.305 subject to the following condi-

tions:

1.

 The variance from Section 304.121 will expire

July

15,

 1984.

2,

 The remainder of this variance will expire

December 31,

 1984,

3.

 During the term of this variance, Atwood shall

comply with the following limitations:

Monthly Avg.

 Weekly Avg.

BOD5

 40 mg/i

 60 mg/i

SS

 45 mg/l

 65 mg/l

4

 Atwood shall begin routine process control testing,

on at least a twice per week basis, by July 15,

 1984.

Those process control tests shall include the follow-

ing:

 sludge volume index, mixed liquor suspended

solids,

 30—minute settleability, dissolved oxygen in

the aeration basins and digester,

 sludge blanket depth

in the clarifer, total

 suspended and volatile solids in

the digester,

 and biochemical oxygen demand loading.

5.

 Atwood shall remove the source of infiltration/inflow

 into the plant bypass line by August

1,

 1984.

6.

 A contractual agreement with a certified Class

 1 or

Class

 2 wastewater treatment plant operator shall be

submitted by Atwood for Agency review and approval by

July 15,

 1984.

 Such agreement shall be in conformity

with the requirements of 35

 Ill. Adm,

 Code 380.902.

7.

 Atwood shall

 submit a written interim sludge handling

program, including detailed procedures for sludge

handling, by September

1,

 1984.

8.

 Atwood shall act by July l5r

 1984 to stop any flow

of blood to the wastewater treatment plant from the

local

 slaughter house which is not in strict com-

pliance with its sewer use ordinance.

9.

 Atwood shall begin chlorinating wastewater treatment

plant effluent by July 15,

 1984.

58.502

—5—

10.

 Atwood shall submit

 a written maintenance schedule

for all plant equipment and begin implementation of

the schedule by September

1,

 1984.

11,

 If it

 is determined during the term of this variance

that a long term variance is not required, then a

facilities plan shall be submitted by December

1,

 1984.

12.

 During the term of this variance, Atwood may by-

pass wet weather flows provided maximum practicable

flows are given treatment without upsetting the

wastewater treatment plant.

13.

 Subrnittals called for above

 in subparagraphs

6,

7,

and 10 shall be sent to the attention of the Com-

pliance Assurance Section and the facilities plan

mentioned in subparagraph 11 shall be sent to

the attention of the Grants Section at the follow-

ing address.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Water Pollution Control

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield,

 Illinois 62706

14,

 Within forty-five

 (45) days of the adoption of the

Board Order in this proceeding, Atwood shall execute

and forward to the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency,

 Division of Water Pollution Control, Com-

pliance Assurance Section, 2200 Churchill Road,

Springfield, Illinois 62706,

 a Certificate of

Acceptance and Agreement to be bound by all terms and

conditions of this variance,

 This forty—five

(45) day period shall be held in abeyance for

any period this matter

 is being appealed.

The

form of the certificate shall be as follows:

CERTIFICATE

I,

 (We),

_____________

_________,

 having read the

Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in PCB 84—49, dated

June 29,

 1984, understand and accept said order, realizing that

such acceptance renders all terms and conditions thereto binding

and enforceable.

Petitioner

Authorized AGent

58-503

—6—

Title

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I,

 Dorothy

 M. Gunn,

 Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and

Order was adopted on the

 day of

 1984 by

a

vote of

~f-O

Dorothy

 M. Gunn,

 Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

58-504