ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
May 29,
1984
DEPARTMENT
OF
THE AIR FORCE
)
(CHANUTE
AIR
FORCE
BASE),
)
Petitioner,
PCB 84~24
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
)
AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
CCL.
EVANS
T~
PARKER, USAF, APPEARED
FOR
PETITIONERS;
MR.
BRUCE
L,
CARLSON,
ATTORNEY
AT
LAW, APPEARED
FOR
RESPONDENT.
OPINION
AND ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by B, Forcade):
This
matter comes before the Board upon a petition
and
amended
petition for variance filed February
27 and April
3,
1984
by
the
Department of the Air Force,
Chanute Air Force
Base
(~Chanute”),
The original
petition, which included a waiver
of
hearing,
was amended
to
include an affidavit attesting to
the
facts
alleged
as
required by
35 Ill.
Adm,
Code
104,124,
Chanute
has
requested a variance from 35
Ill,
Adm, Code 3040 120(c) con-
cerning effluent limitations
for five day biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD~)
and
suspended solids
for
their main sewage treat-~
ment facility.
Chanute has also requested a modification of
its NPDES
permit in accordance
with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 309.184
which
provides for permit modification pursuant to a variance.
The variance has been requested until Chanute is incorporated
into
the
Rantoul Regionalized Wastewater Facility which
is
ex-
pected
to be completed in early 1987.
On
April
6,
1984,
the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(~Agency~)filed a recommendation that variance
be
denied.
The
basis for this recommendation was that the Petitioner
had
failed
to
provide
sufficient
evidence to meet the statutory
burden
imposed by Section 35
of
the
Illinois Environmental
Protec-
tion
Act
(“Act~),
of demonstrating that compliance with the
existing
effluent limitations
would impose an arbitrary or
unreasonable
hardship.
Ill,
Rev, Stat,
1983,
Ch.
111½, par.
1035.
No
public comments were received, no hearing was held.
Section 3O4~120requires that, effective May
7,
1980,
all
effluents
containing deoxygenating wastes shall meet certain
standards.
Section 304,120(c),
whicli
is
the standard from which
variance
is
sought,
requires that effluent with a dilution
ratio
58~239
2
of less than five to one shall not exceed 10 mg/l
of BOD
or
12
mg/I
of
suspended solids,
Discharges
from
Chanute~ssewage
treatment
facilities are covered
by
NPDES
Permit No,
0027073.
The
current NPDES Permit became effective on October 12,
1983
(Am.
Pet.
App,
A). The NPDES Permit incorporates the HOD
and
suspended
solids
standards of Section 304,120(c)
and als~provides
daily
maximum
standards
for the
effluent.
The permit
limits
for
Outfall
001, the main
trickling filter plant, are
(Rec,
p.
4):
Flow
(MGD)
~D5
Suspended Solids
30
Day
Daily
30
Day
Daily
30
Day
Daily
~
Aver~
~
Design/NPDES
1,5
2.6
10
20
12
Permit
Limits
Chanute
seeks a
variance from these standards as they
are
presently
applied
to their main sewage
treatment facility.
It
is
unclear
from
the
record why
the daily maximum for BOD5 is
less
than
the
daily
maximum allowable under
Section 304.104.
Chanute
proposes
an
interim effluent limitation of
20
mg/l for BOD~and 25
mg/I
for
suspended solids
for a 30 day
average
(Am.
Pee,
p.
10),
Petitioner owns
and
operates
several wastewater
treatment
facilities
at Chanute Air Force
Base.
These include the main
trickling
filter plant, which is
the subject of this variance
request,
a separate sewage treatment
plant that services a remote
area
of
the base,
an oil/water
separator for
the
aircraft refueling
training
area and
an oil/water separator for the aircraft fire
extinguishing training area
(Rec.
p.
2—3).
The main trickling
filter
plant consists of
a comminutor, parshall flume,
bar
screen,
raw
sewage
pump station,
Imhoff tanks, dosing tank, recirculating
pumps,
Calgon carbon adsorption
units,
chlorination and sludge
handling
facilities.
Plant design
average flow is 1,5 million
gallons
per day (~MGD~),
The influent going to the main
trickling
filter
plant is primarily domestic
wastewater,
but
it also receives
discharge
from the oil/water separator
for
the
fire extinguishing
training
area and is
a
potential source of toxics
in the system
(Nec.
p.
3).
The
Calgon carbon adsorption
units
provide
tertiary
treatment
for
Chanutevs main wastewater treatment system.
This tertiary
system
has
proved capable of
compliance
with
the
applicable
BOD~
and
suspended
solids standards when it is operating
(Am.
Pet.
~
App.
B).
Violations have
occurred, however, due to equipment
malfunctions
and down~timefor repair
and maintenance
(Rec,
p.
4-5),
Discharge monitoring reports measuring the effluent from
the
main
trickling filter plant
were
submitted by Chanute pursuant
to
their
NPDES
permit and are provided
here
in part (Rec,
p.
4):
58~240
3
Caics’ttraticn
(mg/l)
Flow
(1W)
Sispaidsl Sollsb
30
Day
Daily
30 Day
Daily
30 1~y
Daily
Mxsth
Awraqe
Max.
Average
Max.
Average
Max.
Fth.
1984
1.3
2.2
7
19
Data not available
Jan.1984
0.9
1.1.
4
16
3
6
Dec.1983
1.4
3.3
11
53
10
27
Mar.1983
1.1
2.9
9
20
7
18
~t.1983
1.1
2.9
7
22
5
19
t~jiei~s
1.5
2.6
20
12
24
W~ffTLIMflS
The
data
for
November
and
December
1983
reflect
effluent
quality
that
results
when
the
Calgon
units
are
not
used.
During
those
two
months,
the
Calgon
system
was
not
operational
(Rec.
p.
4—5).
The
practical effect of granting the variance would be to
allow Chanute to totally discontinue
use
of the current tertiary
treatment system until
wastewater
from
the
base
is
routed
to
the
Rantoul
Regionalized
Waste Facility,
which
will be completed in
early
1987.
Chanute
has
operated
the
Calgon
carbon
adsorption
system
since
1980.
Chanute
investigated
other
tertiary
systems
such
as
polishing
lagoons,
microscreening,
and filtration during the
ntid—1970’s
(Am. Pet.
p.
8). The Calgon system was selected because
it appeared to be the most feasible and cheapest short—term
method
to achieve compliance with the effluent limitations ap-
plicable in 1980
(Am.
Pet.
p. 8).
The petitioner contracted
with
Calgon
to design and construct a carbon adsorption system to
modify
their
existing
plant.
Chanute
chose
not
to
purchase
the
system but to lease it from Calgon.
Chanute
has
a
renewable
service fee and maintenance contract
with
Calgon
(Am.
Pet. p.
8).
Chanute claims it has spent over two million dollars altogether
on
the
Calgon
system
and
is faced with the option of either
purchasing
the
unit
for $613,000 or to
continue
the lease arrange-
ment
at
an
approximate
cost of $31,000 per month
(Am.
Pet. p.
12—13).
It is
not
altogether clear what environmental impact will
result if the variance is granted.
The receiving waters are a
tributary
to the
Upper
Salt Fork Drainage Ditch and are classified
as
general
use
waters.
These
waters
meander
through
primarily
agricultural
land
(Am.
Pet
•
p. 7).
Petitioner provides little
environmental
analysis
beyond
a
description
of
the
receiving
stream’s
characteristics
and
a
conclusory
statement
declaring
that
there
will
be
a
minimal
impact
on
the
environment
(Am.
Pet.
p.
7).
The
impact
of
a
variance
on
toxics
and
ammonia
nitrogen
removal
through
the
use
of
the
carbon
adsorption
system
has
not
58-241
J~en
addressed either
(Rec~
p~ 5~
;~r
~roposes
th
gate
various methods of minor
p~a:t
iti~ation
and
a
ao~e
t~orousmaintenance program to
ensure
utfic~ency
and
r~~cc
unT~ronmentaiimpact
(Am,
Pet,
p~ 10~ii
Chanute has been the subject
oL
a
Lthiber
of
environmentaL
enforcement actions related to
them
c~a~e treatirent
fa~ lities
in
the
recent
past.
In 1977
Region
‘~
ot
the
U,S,
Environirental
Protection Agency issued a
Finding
and
~otmce
of
Violation
and
0rder for Compliance.
In
1980, t~
‘:~.
~
Attorney
Ge
e~al~
because
of continued violations
and
L~c~4sfactory
complian.e,
issued a Notice of Clean Water
Act
:iolatmon,
In
1981,
the
Illinois
Attorney
General
filed
suit
~gr. rat
Chanute
i~
~
District Court,
The
parties
agreed
to
a
oonaent
judgment
e
included a commitment by the Petitioner
to
fund
its
sna~r
~
toe
regional
treatment plant to be built
by
th~ Village
of
P
(Rec.
p.
7).
The Petitioner~sposition is that
the
tertiary
systeu
n
w
~~perationis expensive to rent,
service
and
repair,
and
tith
due
to
frequent malfunctions
is an
unreliable
method
of
co~th
~ith
the
BOD5 and suspended solids
standards,
Ultimate
n~ ~ ~jance
with
the
standards will he achieved
when
Chanute
is
incoxo~mated
into
the regional treatment system
now
under
constructio~
rhe
variance is granted for this
interme
neriod,
Chanut:
v~~l
~nvestigatecertain minor plant
modificatmons
and
maintena~
e
techniques to increase
the
efficiency
of
treatment
and
mir~r~i’~e
nrc environmental impact of the varianc~e
The Board will deny the variance
reCuest
because
Chmnu~ ths
thiled
to
provide sufficient informa~o~~a allow
~he
Bo~.n’ to
orke
an
informed
decision,
The
Board
genemal ly
agrees
~it~
uhe
Agency~srationale
supporting
its
recommendation
that
variance
be
denied.
Chanute
fails
to
sustain
the
statutory
burden
of
showing
that
denying
the
variance
would
impose
an
arbitrary
and
nnieanath~.
rardship.
Petitioner provides cost
figures
for
iental,
maintenann~
nd
r~pair
but provides
little
else.
Cost
figures
alone
do
not
~Jlow
tne
Board
to
evaluate
the
degree
of
hardship
ir~volveo.
~on~bermore,it appears that much
of
this
burden
may
be
self~uooseo
n
ough
Chanute~schoice of tertiary
ays~ems,
its
decision
to
aa~ rather
than purchase the
unit,
its
contractual
dealinj~
~r~rCalgon, or its failure to elicit
full
ontractual
perfomoerce
or
Caigon.
Since
the marginal
performance
of
the
terriani
ystem
is
not
explained,
the
Board
cannor.
exclude
poor
operat~n
the
system
as
a
factor
in
non~corrpliance.
Petitioner
also
ondequately
analyzes
the
environmental
impact
of
granting
a
~ariance
and offers no
information
with
which
to
dete~mdn.
be
d.~areeof
potential impact. Chanute~s
assertion
that
thi
n~-ur
r
-or
plant modifications effluent
qua~.ty
conivalent
to
he
r~sent
tertiary
system can he achieved to
not
supported
by
~titioners
own data
(Rec.
p. 5~6). Cha,rute~svariance
request
ra
deficient
both
in
terms
of
addressing
e-
nomic
and
enthion~ental
n-act
as
required
by
35
Ill,
Adm.
Code
2~
...th1
(g)
and.
Rn-
If
58~242
D
Chanute
can
develop
adequate
information
to
allow
informed
Board
decisionmaking
they
may
again
file
for
a
variance.
While
Chanute~s tertiary
system
does
not
consistently
comply
with
current
standards,
it
does
achieve
compliance
or
near
com-
pliance
to a much greater degree than any alternative the
Petitioner
has presented.
Petitioner does not ask for variance in order
to
gradually work towards compliance.
Petitioner is frequently in
compliance today,
hut seeks
a variance based on inadequate inform-
ation that contradicts Chanute~sconclusions,
ORDER
Department of
the Air
Force
(Chanute Air Force Base)~s,
request for variance from 35
Ill. Adm. Code 304.120 for its main
trickling filter sewage treatment facility is hereby denied.
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
Chairman J.D. Dumelle dissented.
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerk of the
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board,
hereby
c~rtify
that the above Opinion and Order
was ~dorted on the ~
day of
_____,
1984 by a vote
Illinois Pollution Control Board
58-243