75.244

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

 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

miles

Samplings

The

District

also

conducts

water

quality

monitoring

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

the

 day of

 1987, by a vote

__________.

~‘/

t.~c~/

/)~•~

Dorothy

G~nn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

75-250