ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 5,
1987
BLOOMINGTON AND NORMAL
SANITARY DISTRICT,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 86—202
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
R.
C. Flemal):
This matter comes before the Board upon a petition for
variance filed by the Bloomington and Normal Sanitary District
(“District”)
on November 17,
1986.
The District seeks one—year
variance relief from the effluent limitations of
35.
Ill. Adm.
Code Section 304.120(c),
and
from 35
Iii. Adm. Code Section
304.141(a)
as this latter section relates
to biochemical oxygen
demand
(“BOD”)
and suspended solids (“TSS”).
Section 304.120(c)
sets BOD and TSS limitations
of
10 mg/i
and 12 mg/i,
respectively.
Section 304.141(a)
establishes that
no holder of an NPDES permit may discharge any contaminant
in
excess of the limitations
set forth
in the permit.
The
District’s NPDES permit
(#1L0027731) provides, among
other
matters, that its wastewater treatment facilities must meet
tertiary effluent concentration limits of
10 mg/i BOD and 12 mg/i
TSS
as
a monthly average and 15 mg/i BOD and
18 mg/i TSS as a 7—
day maximum,
plus load limits.
For the period of variance
the
District proposes that both BOD and TSS be limited to 25 mg/i,
as
monthly averages.
On December
2,
1987,
the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (“Agency”)
filed
its Recommendation
(“Rec.”)
in this
matter.
The Agency recommends that variance be granted
from
Section 304.120(c).
On February
2,
1987,
the Agency filed a
motion to amend
its Recommendation and to file the amendment
Instanter.
The Agency states that
it inadvertently failed to
recommend that the District also be granted variance from Section
304.141(a),
and that it “would have recommended variance from
Section 304.141(a)
in its Recommendation but
for the
oversight”.
The Board grants the Agency’s motion to file the
amendment to Recommendation Instanter.
By letter
to the Board
filed on January
7, 1987,
the
District noted the absence of need
for
a hearing
in this matter,
the positive Agency recommendation, and the expiration
of the
provisional variance under which the District has conducted
reconstructive work
to date.
The District therefore requested
75.244
—2—
that this “matter
be put on the Board’s agenda for
a decision at
the earliest practicable date”.
In the same letter the District
notes that it has no objections to the conditions suggested by
the Agency.
REASON FOR REQUEST
Petitioner
is a special purpose district which provides
sewage treatment for the City of Bloomington and the Town of
Normal.
The total population served
is approximately 85,000.
Treatment
is provided at three treatment plants, located at a
single
site, which have
a combined design average flow of 16
million gallons per day.
The oldest plant is
a fixed nozzle
trickling filter plant, and the other two employ the activated
sludge process.
Each of the three plants provide independent
secondary treatment.
The effluent from the three
is then
combined
for tertiary filtration and disinfection.
Discharge of
the resultant effluent
is to Sugar Creek,
tributary to Salt
Creek,
tributary to the Sangamon River.
The District
is asking
for one year variance to allow
it to
bypass
its tertiary filters while
it repairs and rebuilds them.
Although only approximately six years old,
the tertiary filters
are failing structurally.
Damage, which occurs during
backwashing operations,
is apparently related
to improper
anchoring of the filters and insufficient structural
integrity of
the underlying floor.
This
is causing
the filters
to pull away
from their anchors.
The District became aware of the problem, although not
necessarily the magnitude of the corrective effort,
during
1985.
At that time the District, while undertaking piping
modifications near the filters, noted considerable media loss,
a
symptom of the failing filter bottoms.
The D4.strict subsequently
sought
and obtained two provisional variances4-, during the
pendency of which the District was able to remove the filters
from service and begin to evaluate both damages and corrective
measures.
The District’s consulting structural engineers have
completed an inspection
of two cells and have conducted pull—out
testing of floor anchors throughout the filter system.
On this
basis
the engineers have concluded that the present anchors,
as
installed,
cannot withstand the uplift pressure developed during
backwashing and air scouring and that the media floor and the
anchoring system will have to be rebuilt.
While
the filters are out of service, the District will be
unable
to meet the BOD and TSS limits contained
in the Board’s
1 The variances in question were
in PCB 86—116 and PCB 86—156,
granted respectively on July 31,
1986,
and September 25,
1986.
Both variances were
for
a period
of
45 days.
75.245
—3—
regulations and
in the District’s NPDES permit.
The District
contends, however, that
it will be able to limit
its effluent to
25 mg/i for both parameters, averaged over its three plants,
during the time the filters are out of operation.
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE
Petitioner presen4-~
~
ni’4pn—r~r’:~~-
‘~-‘
re~
in
trie schedule consist
of
activities undertaken and
compie
ted
during the pendency of the prior provisional variances.
Approximately eight items remain.
In the full,
the compliance
schedule
is:
COMPLETION
June
2,
1986
Issue Request for proposals
for
investigation
2.
Receive proposals
3.
Approve proposal and issue notice
to proceed
4.
Investigation begins
5.
Consultant notifies District
of possible anchor problems
6.
Submit draft investigation report
7.
Submit final
investigation report
8.
Issue request for proposals for
operational
investigation
9.
Approve engineering design
proposal for
structural repairs
10.
Receive proposals for operational
investigation
11.
Approve proposal for operational
investigation and issue notice
to
proceed
12.
Receive final operational investiga-
tion report
13.
Issue Notice
to Proceed for design
work (operational and structural)
14.
Complete design work*
1.
June
July
July
Aug.
Oct.
Nov.
Nov.
24,
1986
8,
1986
23,
1986
8,
1986
31,
1986
5,
1986
5, 1986
Nov.
10, 1986
Nov.
26, 1986
Dec.
19,
1986
Feb.
27,
1987
March
9,
1987
April 27,
1987
75-246
—4—
15.
Approve plans and issue notice to
May 11,
1987
bidders
16.
Receive bids
June
2,
1987
17.
Approve bid and issue notice to
June
8,
1987
proceed for construction
~t.
~~mpiete const.i~
Oct.
30, 1987
B~
~
fully o~~onai
Nov.
4,
1987
*Construction permit may be required at this point.
The Agency concludes that the District compliance schedule
“appears
to be reasonable, and that there does not appear
to be
any alternative method either to keep the facility
in compliance
with effluent limitations or
to return
it to compliance”
(Rec.,
p.
4).
However,
the Agency believes that the compliance schedule
is unduly tight, and notes that the Agency feels
it may be
advisable to allow Petitioner an additional two months
to account
for unforeseen delays which may occur.
The Agency accordingly
recommends
that the variance terminate on December
31,
1987, and
that a condition be imposed on the variance that “in no event
shall Petitioner miss any compliance milestone by more than 60
days (Rec.,
p. 5), with exception only for the final
date.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
During the period of the provisional variances the District
reported the following effluent quality on its Discharge
Monitoring Reports,
as filed with the Agency:
Average
Average
Average
Flow
BOD
TSS
Date
MGD
mg/i
mg/i
08/86
11.84
16
13.3
09/86
15.68
17
16
10/86
20.00
14
17
The District has therefore been meeting
the 25 mg/i
limitations for both BOD and TSS provided for
in the provisional
variances.
Petitioner contends that these are representative
data for operation
in the absence of the tertiary filters, and
therefore are realistic approximations of the quality of effluent
which would be produced during the period of the variance.
The District has also presented fish monitoring data from
three
sites located 600 yards,
2 miles,
and
4 miles downstream
from the plant outfall
(see table below).
Results from 1985 and
early 1986, when the filters were in operation,
are comparable
to
results obtained during later
1986 when the filters were not
in
75.247
—5—
operation.
On this basis,
the Agency concludes that there has
been no adverse environmental impact related
to absence of
tertiary filtration during the period of the provisional
variances.
NUMBER OF FISH SPECIES FOUND
IN SUGAR CREEK
1986 pre—Filter
1986 Post Filter
Distance
1985
Removal
Removal
Downstream
(Tertiary
(Tertiary
(Secondary
of STP
Treatment)
Treatment)
Treatment)
600 yds.
7
10
7
2 miles
19
16
18
4
miles
24
22
25
~
Samplings
6
3
5
The
District
also
conducts
water
quality
monitoring
at
the
same three downstream stations.
The District has presented
(Pet.,
p.
7)
data for dissolved oxygen
(“DO”)
and in—stream BOD
for August,
September, and the first half of October,
1986, when
the filters were not
in service,
and for the corresponding
periods
in 1985 when the filters were in service.
The DO data
display no differences other
than those which might be
attributable
to normal monthly and seasonal variation;
the 1986
data without filtration are,
in
fact, generally higher than the
1985 data with filtration.
The in—stream BOD data are generally
higher
for the 1986 data, but only marginally so.
The District intends, during the pendancy of the requested
variance,
to continue water quality monitoring not only at the
three cited stations,
but at the full 14—station network
it
currently operates.
The District also intends
to continue
monitoring at its 20—station biological monitoring network.
The
District thus contends that it will be able
to recognize any
changes in water quality and/or biological integrity which might
occur during
the period of the variance.
HARDSHIP
The District contends that
it is technically impossible to
comply with existing regulations while the filters are being
rebuilt.
The Agency concurs that Petitioner’s hardship is one
of
technical feasibility.
The Agency also notes that the District
has identified
the most cost—effective method of returning the
plant to compliance
(i.e.,
repairing the filters), and that
to do
so the District needs the time provided by a variance.
It
is also the Agency’s view that the District has been
making
a good faith effort
to repair the filters as quickly as
possible, and that
a full corrective program could be pursued
only after discovery of the full nature of the problem.
75.248
—6—
C ONC LUSI ON
Based on the foregoing,
the Board finds that denial of the
relief
requested by Petitioner would constitute an arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship not justified by the minimal environmental
impact presented in this case.
The Board will therefore grant
the variance, subject to conditions
as requested by Petitioner
and the Agency.
Variance
is scheduled to begin November
5,
1986,
the date upon which
the most recent provisional variance
terminated.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
The Bloomington and Normal Sanitary District
is hereby
granted variance from 35
111. Adm. Code 304.121(c), and from 35
Iii.
Adrn.
Code 304.141(a)
as
it relates
to biochemical oxygen
demand and suspended solids,
subject
to the following conditions:
1.
Variance shall begin November
5,
1986.
2.
Variance shall expire on December 31, 1987,
or upon
return of the tertiary filters
to service, whichever
occurs first.
3.
Petitioner
shall comply with the compliance schedule, as
contained within the attached Opinion,
as closely as
possible, and
in no event shall Petitioner miss any
compliance date by more than 60 days,
except for item 19
which shall
be completed by December
31,
1987.
4.
Petitioner shall provide progress reports on the status
of the repair of
the filters.
Progress reports shall be
submitted with the March,
June, and September Discharge
Monitoring Reports.
5.
During the period of the variance the effluent shall be
limited to
25 mg/i BOD and 25 mg/i TSS, measured
as
a
weighted monthly average of the three effluents
6.
Petitioner shall continue to monitor its effluent as
stated in its NPDES permit.
7.
Petitioner
shall continue its biomonitoririg program arid
report on its findings to the Agency with the December,
1987,
DMR.
8.
Petitioner
shall continue
to operate the rest of its
treatment facilities as efficiently as possible so as to
produce the best effluent possible.
75-249
—7—
9.
Petitioner
shall
notify Pat Lindsey of the Agency’s
Compliance Assurance Section by telephone at 217/782—
9720 when the tertiary filters are returned
to
service.
Written confirmation of the telephone
notification shall
be submitted within five days to the
Agency at the following address:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
Compliance Assurance Section
2200 Churchill Road
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 61794—9276
Attention:
Pat Lindsey
10.
Within
45 days of the date of the Board’s Order, the
Petitioner
shall execute
a certificate
of acceptance and
agreement, which shall be sent to Mr. James Frost of the
Agency at the following address:
Mr. James Frost
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield,
Illinois
62794—9276
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
~
,
1987, by a vote
of
__________.
/
/
t,
~‘/
t.~c~/
/)~•~
Dorothy
M.
G~nn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
75-250