ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    December 13, 1979
    VILLAGE OF
    HOMEWOOD,
    )
    )
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB
    79—133
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr. Dumelle):
    Petitioner is seeking a variance from Rules 401, 402,
    404,
    405,
    and
    406 of thapter 3:
    Water Pollution for the discharge
    frcm its sewage treatment facilities into Butterfield Creek.
    The Agency recommended that a variance be granted.
    No hearing
    was held.
    Petitioner
    has
    been
    unable
    to comply with the provisions
    of
    NPDES
    Permit
    No. IL0029211 for several reasons.
    Hydraulic
    overloads due to high, inflow
    and
    infiltration
    in
    Petitioner’s
    collection system have interfered with the sewage treatment
    plant’
    s
    ability
    to
    remove
    BOD
    and
    suspended
    solids
    •
    Present
    facilities
    have
    never
    incorpohted
    ammonia
    reduction.
    Limita-
    tions
    on
    chlorine
    residual
    and
    fecal
    coliform
    bacteria
    are.
    violated
    because
    of
    failures
    of
    chlorination
    equipment
    and
    inadequate
    contact
    time.
    Petitioner
    has
    also
    asked
    for
    a
    variance
    from
    its
    present
    NPDES
    requirement
    to
    monitor
    influent.
    Petitioner
    has
    completed
    a
    Step 1 facilities plan under
    its
    construction
    grant
    which
    will
    not
    be
    approved
    until
    a
    sewer
    system
    evaluation
    survey
    (SSES)
    is
    completed.
    Petitioner’s sewage facilities handle domestic sewage
    from a population of approximately 20,000.
    Present facilities
    include primary treatment, then secondary treatment split
    between activated sludge and trickling filter processes,
    followed by finishing ponds
    and
    chlorination.
    These facili-
    ties
    are
    designed to treat 3.5 million gallons
    per
    day (MGD).
    Flows in excess of 4.5
    MGD
    receive primary treatment and
    chlorination
    with
    reduced contact time.
    When flow reaches
    10.5
    MGD
    bypassing occurs~ During periods of little or no
    inflow into the collection pystem, the average flows do not
    exceed design capacity.
    During March of 1979 a flow of 14.234
    37—17
    MGD w~srecorded,
    From August 1978 until
    April 1979 the
    design flow was exceeded
    on about 46,1
    of the days in
    that
    period.
    Effluent concentrations of BOD5 exceeded
    10 mg/l on
    55
    of the days sampled but did not exceed
    30
    mg/i.
    Effluent
    concentrations of suspended solids exceeded
    12 mg/i on 33
    of
    the days sampled and exceeded 30 mg/l on 2,4
    of the
    days
    sampled.
    Mass limitations in Petitioner~sNPDES permit are
    exceeded more frequently due to excess
    flows.
    Nitrification
    occurs in the activated sludge portion of Petitioner~splant
    only when conditions are
    favorable,
    Petitioner plans
    to correct its violations through com~
    pletion of its SSES followed by either upgrading of its facili~
    ties with construction grant funding or diversion of flows to
    the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
    (MSD),
    Presently Petitioner plans
    to complete the SSES in December,
    1980 and make its decision on upgrading and diversion in
    January,
    1981.
    Petitioner~ssewer system will not be rehab~
    ilitated and diversion to MSD could not occur until December,
    1981,
    If Petitioner~streatment facilities are upgraded,
    improvements could not be completed until
    May,
    1984.
    The
    total
    costs for either of these alternatives
    is expected to
    range from $6.4 million to $8.5 million,
    Petitioner predicts no change in the present condition
    of Butterfield Creek, described as “faire,
    if a variance is
    granted.
    Petitioner points to plant improvements since
    August,
    1977 and increases in operation and maintenance
    budgeted expenses as evidence that its present inadequate
    facilities are being operated at optimum efficiency,
    Petitioner feels that any more locally funded interim
    improvements,
    such as $600,000 capital costs
    for breakpoint
    chlorination for ammonia removal, would constitute undue
    hardship.
    Petitioner feels its resources will be better
    spent pursuing long range solutions,
    Petitioner has requested the following interim effluent
    limitations during the variance:
    ~erae
    ~verae
    BOD5
    2200 lbs.
    1540 lbs.
    (1000 kg)/day
    (700 kg)/day
    (30 mg/i)
    (30 mg/i)
    susepnded solids
    2200
    lbs.
    1540 lbs.
    (1000 kg)/day
    (700 kg)/day
    (30 mg/i)
    (30 mg/I)
    Flow
    9.0 MGD
    Chlorine residual
    0,2
    0,75 mg/i
    Fecal Coliform
    unlimited when flow exceeds
    4,5 MGD and
    400/100 ml at other times,
    Ammonia nitrogen
    25 mg/i
    at all times
    No influent reporting requirements,
    The interim relief from BOD5,
    suspended solids,~flow, and
    chlorine residual would be necessary only when the average
    monthly flows exceed 3.5 MGD, daily flows exceed 7,0 MGD or
    mean monthly temperatures are below 1°C,
    Petitioner has been negotiating with MSD on diversion
    since September of 1977 when it decided that this alternative
    was its best long range solution,
    The areawide water
    quality management plan prepared by the Northeastern
    Illinois Planning Commission concurs
    in this decision,
    Issues related to a pre~annexationagreement with MSD
    presently remain unresolved,
    Petitioner feels
    it cannot
    complete its negotiations until the SSES is completed.
    In
    an Amended Recommendation the Agency has asked that a
    variance be granted until January
    1,
    1981 or until the SSES
    is complete, whichever occurs first,
    The Agency concprs
    with Petitioner’s requested interim effluent limitations but
    has indicated that no variance
    is needed to drop the NPDES
    requirement that influent be monitored,
    The Board’s Water Pollution regulations were adopted in
    1972,
    The record in this matter is silent on the critical
    issue of why Petitioner’s~sewagecollection and treatment
    problems have lingered for over seven years with another two
    to five years needed to rectify the situation,
    In EPA v.
    ~
    PCB 76—320,
    26 PCB
    49, June 28~i977,
    the Board accepted a stipulation which provided,
    inter alia,
    that Petitioner would submit a facilities plan to the Agency
    by June
    30,
    1977.
    Once again the question remains
    as to why
    this five year delay?
    In this matter, Petitioner states
    that it has never provided nitrification with no explanation
    why the ammonia nitrogen water quality standard of Rule
    203(f) was ignored.
    The Board cannot quarrel with
    Petitioner’s estimated costs
    if it
    is required to proceed
    now with local
    funding for needed improvements,
    The problem
    remains that Petitioner has not shown why this hardship
    should not be construed as self—imposed,
    If Petitioner
    is
    inclined to~providethis information in a future variance
    petition,
    it should feel free to do so,
    At this point the
    Board sees no alternative to denying relief,
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
    and conclusions of law in this matter,
    ORDER
    Petitioner’s request
    for a variance from Rules 401,
    402,
    404,
    405 and 406 of Chapter
    3:
    Water Pollution is hereby
    denied,
    IT IS SO ORDERED,
    I, Christan L, Moffett,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby c~rtifythe ab~veOpinion and Order
    were adopted on the
    ~
    day of
    ~
    1979 by a
    vote of
    Illinois Pollution
    trol Board
    37~20

    Back to top