ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 9,
1986
GOOD HOPE SANITARY DISTRICT,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 86-66
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent,
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by W.3. Nega):
This provisional variance request comes before
the Board
upon
a
May
9,
1986 Recommendation of
the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
(Agency).
The Agency recommends that a 45—day
provisional
variance be granted
to the Good Rope Sanitary
District from 35 Iii. Adm. Code 304.120(a)
to allow
the
Petitioner
to exceed
the final effluent standards set
by its
NPDES Permit
of 30 milligrams per liter
(mg/i)
for biochemical
oxygen demand
(BOD) and 37 mg/i
for
total
suspended solids
(TSS)
during
the time period that the water
level
in its existing
single-cell lagoon
is lowered so that improvements can
be made to
the present lagoon.
The Good Hope Sanitary District owns and operates
a sewage
treatment plant which serves
a population of 570
in the
municipality
of Good Hope
in McDonough County,
Illinois.
The
Petitioner’s sewage treatment plant, which receives only domestic
sewage from the community,
has
a design average flow of
57,000
gallons per day
(i.e., 0.057 million gallons per day) and
discharges effluent
to an
unnamed tributary of the LaMoine River
pursuant
to the appropriate NPDES Permit authorization.
(Rec.
1).
According
to
a lagoon exemption granted
to the Good Hope
Sanitary District by the Agency on May 19, 1977,
the Petitioner’s
single—cell lagoon system
is required
to meet final effluent
limitations of
30 mg/i for biochemical oxygen demand and
37 mg
/1
for total suspended solids
as monthly averages.
Discharge
monitoring reports submitted to the Agency by the Petitioner
indicate
the following effluent data
for
the past year:
Month
Flow
(MGD)
BOD
(mg/i)
TSS
(mg/i)
March, 1986
0.033
30
6
February, 1986
32
20
January,
1986
0.033
28
5
69-470
—2—
Month
Flow
(MGD)
BOD (mg/i)
TSS
(mg/i)
December, 1985
0.036
16
7
November,
1985
0.039
7
3
October, 1985
0.065
21
48
September,
1985
0.021
26
73
August,
1985
0.026
29
136
July,
1985
0.014
26
77
June,
1985
0.042
31
64
May,
1985
0.117
20
46
April,
1985
0.241
21
7
Average
0.061
24
41
(Rec.
2)
At
the present time,
the Petitioner
is
involved
in
a project
to upgrade
its
sewage treatment plant.
The Good Hope Sanitary
District
is seeking authorization to “lower
the water
level
in
its lagoon
to
a depth
of 18 inches
to allow a berm to
be
constructed
to form
a smaller temporary lagoon cell within the
present lagoon
so that improvements can be made
to the existing
lagoon”.
(Rec.
2).
During
the time period that the lagoon water
level
is being
lowered, the Good Hope Sanitary District plans
to
construct both sand filter
and chlorination facilities and also
anticipates
the
installation of temporary aeration equipment
in
the lagoon.
(Rec.
2).
The Agency has indicated
that the Good Hope Sanitary.
District has requested
a provisional variance only for the
relatively short
time period
in which
the lagoon water
level
is
being drawn down
to
18 inches.
The Petitioner plans
to utilize
the aerated temporary lagoon cell, dual intermittent sand filters
and chlorination facilities
to
treat
the incoming sewage while
improvements
to
the existing
lagoon are being finished.
(Rec.
2).
In
a letter dated April
28,
1986 from the President of the
Good Hope Sanitary District
to the Agency,
the description of the
planned process
is as follows:
.Improvements to the existing single cell
lagoon include lowering the lagoon’s bottom
elevation and the addition of dual
intermittent sand filters with chlorination
facilities.
Lowering
the existing lagoon’s bottom
elevation necessitates construction of
a
temeporary
earth berm within the existing
lagoon
cell.
To facilitate construction
of
the berm,
the Sanitary District proposes
to
69-47 1
—3—
lower
the water
level
in the lagoon.
Lowering the water level
to eighteen
inches would
be
a gradual process accomplished
by slightly opening
the drain valve located
in
the
lagoon’s effluent structure.
The valve
would be operated
in a manner that would
limit
the effluent
rate.
The Plant Operator would
limit
the
effluent rate
to approximately 143,900 gpd
(2.5 x Influent Rate).
This would allow the
lagoon to maintain the greatest treatment
possible and still
lower
the lagoon
three feet
in forty-five days.
This rate should assure
that sludge would
not be removed from the
lagoon bottom and deposited
in the stream.
Once the lagoon i~lowered,
the
contractor would
begin construction of
the
berm.
During construction, flow to the plant
would proceed through the lagoon in normal
manner and
the drain
valve would
be closed
to
begin raising the lagoon’s water
level.
As
the berm reaches completion,
flow to
the existing lagoon effluent structure would
be eliminated.
However, during development of
the berm,
the contractor would have installed
the proposed sand filters and chlorination
filters.
Flow detained
in the temporary
lagoon would be pumped
to the
filters and
chlorine basin prior
to being discharged into
the stream.
The temporary lagoon would remain
in operation until
the lagoon rehabilitation
was completed.
Upon completing work within
the lagoon,
the temporary lagoon would be
eliminated
and
the plant
would be put into
operation.”
In reference
to the potential environmental impact
on the
receiving stream during
the lowering of the water
level
in the
lagoon,
the Petitioner
has stated that it believes that there
will
be no long term adverse environmental impact.
Although the
Petitioner
has admitted
in Item
6 of
its April
28,
1986 letter to
the Agency that “discharging partially treated wastewater may
momentarily create
a lower dissolved oxygen (D.O.)
content
in the
receiving stream”,
the Good Hope Sanitary District
emphasizes
that
“flow within the stream should
be adequate enough to
maintain some dilution of the sewage which minimizes the effect
of lower
D.O.
content”.
Moreover, Item 6 also indicates
that
“the
stream
is not used for recreational purposes such as
69-472
—4—
boating,
fishing,
etc.
or
as
a source of potable water
for
any
nearby communities” and concludes that
“therefore,
a lower D.O.
content should
not create any adverse effect”.
In its Recommendation,
the Agency has stated that it “agrees
with Petitioner’s assessment of the environmental
impact since at
this time of year
it can be expected that the flow
in the
receiving stream will be higher than normai”.
(Rec.
2).
The Petitioner has considered alternatives
to
its planned
lowering the water
level
in
its existing lagoon and found such
alternatives
to be impractical.
Item
7 of
its April
28,
1986
letter
to
the Agency delineates
the Petitioner’s consideration of
the possibility of building
the berm while the lagoon’s water
depth would
be
at
its normal operating
level
of five feet
as
follows:
“Maintaining complete
treatment
of the sewage
during construction of the
temporary. earth
berm would create several problems.
First,
the berm must be constructed
to
a certain
degree of compaction
in order
to avoid
seepage
problems.
It would
appear
to be an
unreasonable hardship to attempt
to obtain
this degree
of compaction
in five feet of
standing water.
Second,
no testing
for
the degree
of
compaction could
be made while
the berm was
below water
level.
Therefore, several lifts
of earth would
be installed without any
compaction tests being completed.
Finally, constructing the berm
in five
feet of water
would
take more time and
therefore be more costly than the proposed
method of construction.”
The Agency has carefully evaluated the Petitioner’s plan to
lower
the water
level
in
its waste stabilization pond
to
facilitate improvements
to the Good Hope Sanitary District’s
sewage treatment facilities.
It
is estimated that the lowering
of
the water
level
in the lagoon can be completed
in
45 days and
it
is anticipated
that the water
level
in the lagoon would
subsequently be raised as soon as possible
to effectuate prior
treatment levels.
Because the existing lagoon does not presently
provide adequate treatment of the community’s sewage
to meet the
final
effluent requirements set forth in the Petitioner’s NPDES
Permit,
the parties believe that the proposed operational
improvements will facilitate compliance with the applicable
effluent standards.
69-473
—5—
In
its Recommendation,
the Agency states that “although
Petitioner has not requested specific effluent limits during
the
period
of lagoon drawdown,
the Agency has determined that
appropriate effluent limits of
60 mg/i as monthly averages for
both BOD and TSS would
be appropriate during
the variance period
requested”.
(Rec.
3).
The Agency believes that “these limits
would
allow Petitioner some leeway should the
increased discharge
rate cause
a slight degradation of
the
effluent, but would not
allow the discharge of raw sewage or bottom deposits”.
(Rec.
3).
The Agency has also indicated
that there are no federal
regulations that would preclude the granting of
the provisional
variance and
that there
are no downstream public water supplies
which
would
be affected by granting
the requested relief
to the
Petitioner.
(Rec.
3).
Furthermore,
the Agency has emphasized that
the “Petitioner
has stated,
and the Agency agrees,
that the only alternative
to
lowering
the water
level
in the existing lagoon,
i.e.,
constructing
the berm in
5 feet of standing water,
is not
a
viable alternative.”
(Rec.
3).
Additionally,
the Agency has noted
in
its Recommendation
that “Petitioner has stated that denial
of
its variance petition
would create an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship since
the
existing lagoon must be dewatered in order
to make
the necessary
improvements and constructing the berm
for the temporary lagoon
in
5 feet of standing water would not allow for sufficient
compaction
to preclude seepage problems.”
(Rec.
3).
The Agency
stated that
it “agrees
that Petitioner would experience an
arbitrary and unreasonable hardship
if Petitioner’s variance
request were denied.”
(Rec.3).
The Agency has therefore concluded
that compliance with the
applicable standards would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship upon
the Good Hope Sanitary District.
(Rec.
1:
3).
Accordingly,
the Agency has recommended
that the Board grant
the
Petitioner
a provisional variance from 35 Ill.
Adm. Code
304.120(a),
subject
to certain conditions.
Pursuant
to Section 35(b)
of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act,
the Board will grant
the provisional variance as
recommended.
This Opinion constitutes
the Board’s findings
of fact and
conclusions of
law
in this matter.
ORDER
The Good Hope Sanitary District
is hereby granted
a
provisional
variance from 35
Ill. Adm. Code 304.120(a)
to allow
the Petitioner
to exceed
the final effluent standards set by
its
69-474
—6—
NPDES Permit
of
30 mg/i
for biochemical oxygen demand and
37 mg/i
for total
suspended solids,
subject to the following conditions:
1.
The provisional variance shall commence when the Petitioner
begins
to lower
the water
level
in the existing lagoon and shall
continue
for
45 days thereafter.
2.
During the term of this provisional variance,
the
Petitioner’s effluent shall
be limited
to 60 mg/i
as monthly
averages for both biochemical oxygen demand
and total suspended
solids.
3.
The Petitioner
shall collect samples once
a week and shall
analyze
each sample for biochemical oxygen demand
and total
suspended solids.
Results
of these analyses shall
be tabulated
and submitted
to
the Agency with the requisite monthly discharge
monitoring report.
4.
The water
level
in the existing lagoon shall
not be
lowered
below
the
18 inch level
and at
no time shall lagoon sludge and/or
bottom deposits be discharged.
5.
The Petitioner
shall notify Mr.
Lyle Ray
of the Agency’s
Peoria Regional Office via telephone at 309/693—5463 when the
drawdown of the lagoon water
level
is begun and ended.
This oral
notification shall be supplemented by
a written confirmation that
shall
be submitted within
5 days
to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
5415
N. University Avenue
Peoria,
Illinois
61614
Attention:
Mr. Lyle Ray
6.
The Petitioner
shall submit
a change
order
to the Agency’s
Grant Administration Section should this provisional variance
result in
a cost savings from the original grant cost estimate.
7.
The Petitioner
shall operate its treatment facility
so
as
to
produce
the best effluent possible.
8.
Within 10 days
of
the date of the Board’s Order,
the
Petitioner shall
execute
a Certification 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
Springfield, Illinois
62706
69-475
—7--
This certification shall
have the following form:
I,
(We),
,
having
read the Order
of the
Illinois Pollution Control
Board
in PCB 86-
66,
dated May 9,
1986,
understand and accept
the said Order,
realizing that such acceptance renders
all terms
and conditions
thereto binding and enforceable.
Petitioner
By:
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
IT IS
SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M.
Gunn, Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order w~s
adopted
on the
______________
day of
~r?-i&~.
,
1986 by
avoteof
_____________.
0
Dorothy M.
G~mnn,Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
69-476