ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November 18,

1983

OAK GROVE MOBILE HOME

PARK,

Petitioner,

V.

)

PCB 83~21

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY, AND

VILLAGE OF MILAN,

)

Respondents.

OPINION AND ORDER

OF THE BOARD

(by J~D.

Dumelle):

This

matter comes before the

Board on

a petition for

variance filed by the Oak Grove

Mobile Home Park

(Oak Grove)

on

February

22,

1983 as amended on April

25 and

May 31,

1983,

Oak

Grove seeks variance from the effluent

and water quality limits

for BOD,

TSS,

ammonia nitrogen and fecal coliform

of

35 111.

Adm.

Code SS302.212,

304,105, 304.120

(a & c), 304,121 and 304,301 in

anticipation of connection to the

Village of Milan~ssewer system

by 1986.

Since compliance would

involve the

transportation of

Oak Grov&s effluent for treatment at a sewage treatment plant

owned and operated by the Village

of Milan

(Village),

the Village

was joined as

a respondent by Board Order of May

5,

1983,

The

Village has voiced no agreement with, or opposition to,

this

petition.

The October 25,

1983 Recommendation of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency),

accompanied

by a motion

to file instanter which is hereby granted,

is that

variance be

granted subject to certain conditions.

Hearing was waived and

none has been held.

The Oak Grove Mobile Home Park

is located approximately two

miles

south of the Village of Milan in Rock Island County.

Its

55 mobile home units and two houses are served by a collection

system and sewage treatment plant which have been in operation

since the early 1950~sand were upgraded

in response

to

the Board

Order in PCB 81—148

(45 PCB 425; February

17,

1981),

The

treatment plant consists of three septic tanks

in series,

a

holding tank with two dosing siphons, and sand filters,

Effluent

is discharged into an unnamed

intermittent creek tributary first

to Mill Creek,

then

to the Rock River,

and then to the

Mississippi.

Oak Grove apparently seeks variance until

the

completion of the Village~sconstruction program (which is

estimated to

be in

1986)

to allow

it to discharge effluent

54~357

---

2

containing

30 mg/i of each BOD

and TSS

(the effluent standards

being 10/12),

10 mg/i ammonia nitrogen (the effluent standard

being 1,5 mg/i), and unlimited amounts of

fecal coliform

(the

effluent standard being 400/100

ml).

In February through April

of 1983

(which

is the only available discharge data since

completion of the improvements to the system

pursuant to PCB

81—148),

Daily Monitoring Reports (DMR~s)

indicated BOD loadings

ranging from 10 to 18 mg/i,

TSS from

7 to 17 and

ammonia nitrogen

from 1.0 to 3,0 mg/i.

Fecal coliform data are missing,

although

earlier data shows grab samples as high

as

5.4

million/100

ml

(September,

1982).

The Village estimates that the upgrading of

the existing

treatment plant to meet the 10/12 standard would require an

initial outlay of $16,460 with annual expenses

of $5,779,

Oak

Grove is

loathe to embark on such a project

for two reasons:

it

is not the most cost—effective alternative and

would require an

interruption in service.

The total

present work project cost is

estimated at $74,260,

A second alternative

is

to

connect

to the existing Milan

sewer.

Capital costs

for that project

are estimated at $59,650

and annual expenses are estimated at

$4,523 resulting

in

a

total

present worth project cost of $99,220,

Again, the Village

considers this alternative

as non—cost—effective and also points

out that the downstream sewer is presently subject to excess

infiltration and inflow and is currently overloaded.

It

does,

however, have the advantage of regionalized

wastewater treatment.

The

third alternative

is connection

to

a proposed

Milan

interceptor.

This would

entail capital costs of $10,220, annual

costs of $4,798 and a total present worth

cost of $64,080,

The

Village alleges that this

is the most cost—effective solution and

that it also results in regionalized wastewater

treatment.

The Agency substantially agrees with

the cost information

presented on the three compliance alternatives, hut notes that if

P37-12,

Docket D goes into effect,

the

costs of upgrading the

existing treatment plant would be $16,000 less than

that

projected

in the second amended petition.

Thus,

the upgrading of

the existing plant would become the most

cost—effective option.

According to the Agency,

the

Village

is presently

in the

Step

1 phase of the construction grants

program.

A Sewer

System

Evaluation Survey was

submitted

in March,

1983.

The

Village submitted its Facility

Plan on August

19,

1983,

The

Agency

has reviewed the

Milan SSES and Facility Plan and sent a

letter notifying

Milan

that additional documentation must be

54~358

---

3

The Agency further states that adverse environmental effects

on the Rock River are unlikely due to the dilution factor

(7-day,

10-year low flow of the Rock River 30 miles upstream from its

confluence with Mill Creek

is over 844 MGD),

On the other hand,

Mill Creek and the unnamed tributary into which Oak Grove

discharges both have zero 7—day,

10—year low flows,

and,

therefore,

any deoxygenating or toxic effects will be much more

noticeable.

However, during an inspection on May 16,

1983, the

Agency observed that the effluent discharge was clear with no

visual impact on the receiving stream,

The Agency concludes that some relaxation of the Board’s

regulations

would

be

both

environmentally acceptable and con-

sistent with the Clean Water

Act, but not to the levels

requested.

It believes that with the improved operation and

maintenance BOD and TSS

limitations of 20/20 could be achieved.

As Oak Grove’s ammonia nitrogen levels have not exceeded 3.0 mg/I

since the improvements to the plant were completed, the Agency

suggests an interim limit of 5,0 mg/I,

The Agency also

recommends that the fecal coliform limit be eliminated,

In

support it cites the pendency of R77-12,

Docket

D,

remarking that

Oak Grove would be exempt from the limitation if the rules are

adopted as proposed.

Finally, the Agency proposes that variance,

with conditions,

expire in six months by which time

a feasible

compliance plan could be completed.

The Board finds that denial

of variance would impose an

arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.

Oak

Grove is within the

Milan Facility Planning Area,

Given the preference,

for

environmental and other reasons,

for regional sewage treatment

over individual treatment plants,

for the Board to require

complete plant rehabilitation at this time would not be in the

best interests

of all concerned.

Variance will be granted to

include effluent limitations as recommended by the Agency, and

the fecal coliform limit will be waived entirely.

This reflects

the Board’s determination that the capital outlay required for

installation of disinfection equipment can reasonably be deferred

for the term of this variance, during which time the appeals of

the

regulatory proceeding should have

been completed.

The Board believes that the suggested six—month term for

variance is too short.

Proper evaluation of the costs and

feasibility of compliance alternatives may well be dependent upon

information generated during the course of the Village’s SSES and

facility planning and the appeals process in R77—12, Docket D.

Connection to the Milan interceptor apparently cannot be made

prior to 1986,

and, depending upon the Agency’s final action

concerning the construction grants program, may not ever be

reasonable. However, after the grant review

is completed and

R77-i2,

Docket D becomes final, Oak

Grove should he in a position

to determine how compliance will

he

attained.

54~359

---

4

The Board will grant variance until May 3~, 198,

thc

expiration date of Oak Grove’s current NPDES

peritit).

I~the

interceptor is constructed, compliance should h~at~-ainableby

that date.

Further, while no timetable has bc~noreser~ted, given

the nature of the modifications of the existing sewage treatment

plant which would be required to attain compliance

it

aopears

that such work

could

be

completed

by that date.

The Board

stresses that the variance granted herein

unlike the short

t rm

variance recommended by the Agency,

is intended to allow enough

time for Oak Grove to come into

compliance,

not simply to

determine how compliance will

be attained.

The compliance

alternative should be selected at the earliest reasonable date

and compliance,

thereafter,

should

be expeditious~yattained.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions

of

law in this matter,

ORDER

The Oak Grove Mobile Home Park,

is hereby g~a~ed

~‘

ara cc from

35

Ill. Adm.

Code 302.212,

304,105, 304.120

c

30

i21 and

304,212

as

they relate to the discharge of BOD

T$S

ammonia

nitrogen and fecal coliform, subject to the follo~iingconditions:

1,

Petitioner~svariance

shall expire on May

31,

1986;

2.

During the

variance period the following effluent

limitations shall

be met:

BOD/TSS—20/20 ng/l, and

ammonia nitrogen—5 mg/I

as monthly averages

3.

By October

1,

1984,

Oak Grove shall subrit a firm

compliance plan to the Agency.

If this plan is to

connect

to the

proposed

Milan interceptor

it will need

to include a commitment

from Milan that

it will be

built

by a specific date

regardless of grant funaing

status.

If

this

commitment cannot be

aade

Oak Grove

must present an alternative plan,

including a

compliance schedule;

4.

Oak Grove

shall provide the best practicable degree of

treatment at its wastewater treatment plant;

5.

Within forty—five

(45) days

of the date of this Order,

Oak Grove shall execute and send to Steven M.

Spiegel,

Attorney Advisor, Enforceme1t ?roora~~’s,Illinois

Environmental Protection Aaency

2200 Clurchill Road,

Springfield, Illinois 62706,

a Certification of

Acceptance by which it agrees to be

ound by the terms

and conditions of this variance.

The forty-five

(45)

day period shall be held in

abeyance for any period

for

which this matter

is appealed.

The form of said

certification shall be as follows:

54~360

---

5

CERTIFICATION

I

(We), _______________________,

having read the Order

of the Illinois Polluton Control Board

in

PCB 83—21 dated

November 18,

1983,

understand and accept

that Order and agree to

be bound by all terms and conditions thereof.

Petitioner

By:

Authorized Agent

Title

Date

IT IS SO

ORDERED.

Board Members Bill

Forcade and John Marlin abstained,

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

______,

1983 by a vote of

~.

Christan

L. Moffett, Clew’

Illinois Polluton Contrd~1’Board

54-361