ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November
2,
1978
VILLAGE OF FINDLAY,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 78—222
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF
THE
BOARD
(by
Mr.
Young):
This matter comes before the Board
on a Petihion filed
by the Village of Findlay on August 16,
1978,
for relief
from the Rule
203(d) and 402 dissolved oxygen requirements
of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Regulations.
On September
26,
1978, the Environmental Protection Agency recommended
that relief be granted as requested for five years Provided
that Petitioner adhere to certain conditions.
No hearing
was held in this matter.
The Village of Findlay requires a variance from the
dissolved oxygen requirements of Rules
203(d) and 402 of
Chapter
3 before the Agency can approve conventional treat-
ment improvements for Step II and Step III grant
~unding.
Petitioner owns and operates a factory—fabricated contact
stabilization activated sludge unit with chlorination facili-
ties and an aerated grit chamber.
The treatment facility
presently receives sanitary sewage and storm water drainage
from the Village combined sewer system which discharges
to an
unnamed ditch 2200 feet upstream from Lake Shelhy’iille.
According to Petitioner’s discharge monitoring reports,
the
flow to the plant consistently exceeds the 0.125 MGD design
average flow although the facility maintains average BOD5/
suspended solids levels of 21 mg/i and 19 mg/I respectively.
On April
3,
1976,
the Village of Findlay was placed on re-
stricted status based upon a finding that the treatment works
was being operated at 145
of its design capacity
(Pet.
2,
3,
Rec.
3).
Since the USEPA authorized the Agency to aciminister the
federal construction grants program, each applicant is required
to present, to the Agency’s satisfaction
in a Step
I Facilities
Plan,
an evaluation of alternative technologies which may in-
clude land treatment or reuse of wastewater.
In this regard,
32—5 1
—2—
Petitioner submitted two treatment alternatives for upgrading
its treatment works.
The proposed system using conventional
tertiary treatment improvements
(Alternative
#1)
consists of
a new sanitary collection system and improvements
to the
existing wastewater facility including nitrification tertiary
filtration, sludge drying beds,
a laboratory and control
building and
a main plant lift station.
If denied this
variance,
the Petitioner could he required to implement
Alternative
#2.
These improvements would include in addition
to the new sanitary collection system and a main plant lift
station,
a secondary lift station,
a storage lacoon, an irriga-
tion pumping and a spray system,
a subsurface drainage system,
chlorination and flow measurement devices.
Both alternatives
include the necessary interconnecting appurtenances
to serve
a design population of 1,000 P.E.
(Pet.
3,
Rec.
4,
5).
To show compliance with the dissolved oxygen requirements
of Chapter
3,
Petitioner
is required to demonstrate that
a
discharge from the proposed facility using conve1itional tertiary
treatment improvements would not cause or contribute to the
reduction of dissolved oxygen levels in the receiving body of
water below 5.0 mg/i at any time or less than 6.0 mg/l during
l6hoursof any 24-hour day.
Additionally,
if the dissolved
oxygen standards are not achieved in the receiving body, Peti-
tioner would be required to meet the water quality standards
as an effluent limitation in accordance with Rules
203(d) and
402 of Chapter
3.
On April
10,
1976,
the application of the Village of
Findlay for a Pfeffer exemption pursuant to Rule 404(f) (ii)
was denied by the Agency.
The denial was based not upon a
determination that Petitioner’s proposed facility improvements
in Alternative
#i would violate the Chapter
3 dissolved oxygen
standards
in the receiving stream or in Lake Shelbyville, but
was due to an Agency determination that the modified Streeter-
Phelps Equation could not he used for analysis of the effect
of the discharge on the receiving waters.
Because of the short
distance
(less than five days travel time)
between the Findlay
outfall and Lake Shelbyville, the difficulty of predicting the
reaeration rate of the lake and other factors,
tihe Village of
Findlay is precluded from verifying dissolved oxygen conditions
by this relatively simple method.
According to the Agency,
downstream dissolved oxygen levels could only be evaluated by
expensive and time—consuming
field studies r~1hichthe Agency
believes would constitute an arbitrary and unreasonable hard-
ship upon the Petitioner
(Rec.
4).
The Village of Findlay claims that the Alternative
#1
using conventional tertiary treatment technology would signi-
ficantly reduce the potential for dissolved oxygen depressions
32—52
—3—
in Lake Shelbyville and cost $504,000 less than land applica-
tion technology over the life time of the treatment technology.
The Agency substantially agrees with Petitioner’s cost assess-
ment but
it seriously doubts whether
the proposed land applica-
tion system
(Alternative
#2) would eliminate a point--source
discharge to Lake Shelbyville.
According to consulting engi-
neer’s report underdrains would be required at least five feet
below the surface
in Alternative
#2
so that the intended use
of the ground would not be hindered.
Under these circumstances,
the Agency believes that the discharge from the underdrain
would not consistently meet the BOD5/SS requirements of Rule
404(f)
and would be required to meet the same standard as
conventional treatment technology
(Pet.
5, Rec.
5)
The Board is concerned with the dissolved oxygen conditions
in Illinois waters especially the problem areas
in this State
where dissolved oxygen violations will continue to occur despite
concerted efforts to improve point source discharies to these
waters.
In a prior variance proceeding involving the Village
of Findlay
(PCB 78—16, March 30,
1978), the Board considered
Petitioner’s evaluation of treatment alternatives including
land application through spray irrigation
in its grant of
relief from the Board’s phosphorus requirements.
In that pro-
ceeding, the Board granted the Village of Findlay relief from
the phosphorus requirements of Rules 203(c) and 402.
In this
matter, the Board finds that Petitioner would suffer unreasonable
hardship
if required to implement land application treatment
technology improvements at its existing facility.
A variance
will he granted to the Village of Findlay from Rules 203(d)
and 402 for five years on the condition that Petitioner’s pro-
posed treatment works achieve a concentration of
10 mg/i BOD5
and 12 mg/l suspended solids effluent quality as a monthly
average.
Petitioner will also be required to consider all
reasonable methods for maintaining high dissolved oxygen levels
in the effluent from its facility and maintain an effluent
dissolved oxygen concentration of at least
6 mq/l.
The Board will direct the Agency to modify Petitioner’s
NPDES permit consistent with this Order pursuant to Rule
914
to include interim effluent limitations as may reasonably be
achieved through application of best practicable operation and
maintenance practices at the existing facility~
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
1.
The Village of Findlay is hereby granted a variance
for
its wastewater treatment plant from Rules
203(d) and 402 of
32—53
—4--
Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Regulations until October
19,
1983,
subject to the following conditions:
a)
Petitioner’s proposed treatmeiit works shall
be designed and constructed to achieve an
effluent limitation not to exceed a concen-
tration of 10 mg/l BOD5 and 12 mg/i suspended
solids
as
a monthly average.
b)
Petitioner’s proposed treatment works shall
maintain an effluent dissolved oxygen con-
centration of at least
6 mg/l
in its dis-
charge to the unnamed ditch tributary to
Lake Shelbyville.
c)
Petitioner shall monitor and report to the
Agency semi-annually the dissolved oxygen
levels in the unnamed ditch at monitoring
points in accordance with methods and fre-
quency as determined by agreement with
the Agency.
2.
Petitioner shall continue to pursue grant funding and
meet all applicable grant schedule requirements.
3.
Petitioner, within 30 days of the date of this Order,
shall request Agency modification of NPDES permit to incorporate
all conditions of the variance set forth herein.
4.
The Agency,
pursuant to Rule 914 of Chapter
3,
shall
modify NPDES permit consistent with the conditions set forth
in this Order including such interim effluent limitations as
may reasonably be achieved through the application of best
practicable operation and maintenance practices
in the existing
facilities.
5.
~7ithin forty—five
(45) days of the date of this Order,
the Petitioner shall submit to the Manager, Variance Section,
Division of Water Pollution Control, Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield,
Illinois,
62706, an executed Certification of Acceptance and Agreement
to be bound to all terms and conditions of the variance.
The
forty-five day period herein shall
be suspended during any
judicial review of this variance pursuant to Section 31 of
the Environmental Protection Act.
The form of said certifica-
tion shall he as follows:
CERTIFICATION
I,
(We), ___________________________
having read
the Order of the Pollution Control Board
in PCB 78-222,
understand and accept said Order, realizing that such
:32—54
—5—
acceptance renders all terms and conditions thereto
binding and enforceable.
SIGNED
TITLE
DATE
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan
L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order
were
adopted on the
~
day of
~
~,
1978 by a
vote of
4/-Q
Christan L.
Moffe
~~‘~lerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
32—55