ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

March

5, 1981

CITIZENS UTILITIES

COMPANY

)

OF ILLINOIS,

)

Petitioner,

)

v.

)

PCB 78—313

)

ILLINOIS ENVIRON!~NTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

MR.

DANIEL

J.

KUCERA, CHAPMAN

&

CUTLER, APPEARED

ON

BEHALF OF

THE PETITIONER.

MR. THOMAS CHIOLA, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED

ON BEHALF

OF

THE

RESPONDENT.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE

BOARD

(by D.

Satchell):

This matter

con’~esbefore the Board upon

a petition for var!-

ar.:e filcd

December

29, 1978 by Citizens Utilities Company of

Illinois

(Citizens Utilities)

,

an Illinois corporation

and

a.

public utility within the meaning of Section

10 of the Illinois

Public Utilities Act.

The petition requests

a variance from the

effluent limitations for five day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD)

suspended solids

(TSS)

and

ammonia nitrogen

as specified in NPDES

permit

1L0032727.

The Board will construe this

as

a petition for

a variance from Rules

402.1(b)

and 404(c)

of Chapter

3:

Water

Pollution.

The requested variance is

in connection with waste—

water treatment plants operated by Citizens Utilities in the

Village of Bolingbrook, Will County

(Bolingbrook).

On January

17,

1979 Bolingbrook filed an objection to the

variance petition.

On February 1,

1979 Bolingbrook was granted

leave to intervefle

arid

hearings were authorized.

On February 15,

1979 the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

filed

a recommendation to deny the variance.

Nine days of hearings were

held,

corrur~encingon January 11, 1980.

On December

17,

1980 Citizens Utilities filed an amended

petition for variance.

On January 16,

1981 the Agency filed an

amended recoinmendation to grant a variance with conditions.

On

January 23, 1981 Citizens Utilities filed

a response regarding

certain conditions which were recommended.

A public hearing was held on January

23, 1981

in Chicago,

Cook County.

At that hearing the parties noted the absence of

---

—2—

Bolingbrook’s attorney.

The parties indicated that Bolingbrook

was in agreement with the grant of the variance as outlined in the

amended pleadings

CR.

12, 42).

On January 23,

1981 Citizens Utilities and the Agency filed

a stipulation.

This requested that the Board decide the case based

upon the amended variance petition, amended recommendation and re-

sponse.

The Board will grant this request in part.

Since the

amended petition does not contain

a sufficient description of the

facilities,

the Board will

make

reference to the original petition

for the basic information.

Citizens Utilities provides water and sanitary sewer service

to approximately 20,000 customers

in the metropolitan Chicago area.

Citizens Utilities operates two wastewater treatment plants

in

Bolingbrook.

Its West Suburban Wastewater Treatment Plant No.

1

(WSB No.

1)

is located at the intersection of Glengary Drive and

Briarcliff Road in the Village of Bolingbrook.

This WSB No.

1 is

the subject of this variance petition.

Citizens Utilities also operates its West Suburban Wastewater

Treatment Plant No.

2

(WSB No.

2)

north of Boughton Road in the

westerly portion of Bolingbrook.

In addition, Bolingbrook owns

a

collection system and wastewater treatment plant serving that por-

tion of Eolirigbrook which IS not within Citizens Utilities’

service

area.

Bolingbrook’s treatment plant is located off Route

53 and

Royce Road.

Citizens Utilities’ West Suburban Wastewater Treatment Plant

No.

1 is an activated sludge plant of the contact stabilization

type designed for

a dry weather flow of 1.28 MGD

(4.84 Mi/day)

The WSB No.

1 includes bar screens,

corriminutor, two primary rec-

tangular clarifiers with mechanisms for sludge removal

and skimming,

contact aeration with spiral roll aeration, reaeration, five rec-

tangular secondary clarifiers,

seven day polishing lagoon, chlorine

contact tank,

two aerobic sludge digesters, eight sludge drying

beds

and

a blower building

(Pet.

2).

In the three years preceding the variance petition Citizens

Utilities expended approximat~’ly$220,000 to make improvements

on the WSB No.

1

(Pet.

6).

Thece improvements included addition

of air capacity for biological treatment, installation of six new

ultrasonic flow meters and revision of main pump room piping to

provide improved pumping sequence.

In addition, Citizens Utili-

ties made improvements to its collection system to reduce storm

water inflow at a cost of over $250,000

(Pet.

7).

Citizens Util-

ities

also added

a second shift and rescheduled working hours to

cover peak flow periods, initiated an operator training program

and

employed consulting professional engineers to assist in design

and

operation

(Pet.

7).

---

—3—

Bolingbrook at the time of the filing of the variance petition

had received approval of a grant to conduct an infiltration and in-

flow analysis of the entire village including that portion served

by Citizens Utilities.

Citizens Utilities will cooperate with

Bolingbrook towards completion of this study.

WSB No.

1 discharges to Lily Cache Creek.

Citizens Utilities

describes this

as “a dry weather Creek”

(Pet.

3,

12).

The

dilu-

tion ratio is less than five to one.

The following Board regulations from Chapter

3

may be applic-

able to the WSB No.

1:

1.

Rule 203(f)

sets a standard of 1.5 mg/i for ammonia

nitrogen in the waters of the receiving stream.

2.

Rule

402 provides that no effluent shall

alone or in

combination with other sources cause

a violation of water quality

standards, including Rule 203(f).

3.

Rule 402.1(b) provides an exception to Rule 402 which

allows effluent discharges of ammonia nitrogen up to 4.0

mg/l

during the months

of November through March.

4.

Rule 402.1(c)

requires compliance with Rule 402.l(b)

by

March

31, 1979

“or

such other dates

as required by NPDES permit

or as ordered by the Board under Title VII or Title IX of the

Act.”

5.

Rule 402.1(d) provides a termination date for Rule 402.1

in July,

1982.

6.

Rule 404(b)

sets effluent standards of 20 mg/i for BOD

and 25 mg/i for TSS

(this will later be referred to as 20/25).

7.

Rule 404(c)

provides that no effluent whose dilution ratio

is less than five to one shall exceed 10 mg/i for BOD and 12 mg/i

for TSS

(10/12)

On November 5, 1975 the Agency issued Citizens Utilities

NPDES permit 1L0032727 for the WSB No.

1

(Pet.

5).

This permit

contained conditions, based on Rule 404(c), requiring a 10/12

effluent limitation.

In addition there was a condition that

effluent ammonia nitrogen not cause violation of Rule 203 water

quality standards in the receiving stream.

Effluent data from the WSB No.

1 for twelve months preceding

November 1978 is presented in the petition

(Pet.

7).

41—13

---

—4—

Monthly averages

(mg/i)

Minimum

average

Maximum

BOD

7

12.4

19

TSS

5

14.4

24

Effluent Ammonia

4.1

8.6

13.8

Stream Ammonia

1.5

4.9

10.1

The Board previously granted Citizens Utilities

a variance

for WSB No.

1 providing a 20/25

limitation and up to 15 mg/l for

ammonia nitrogen

(20/25/15)

(PCB 78-123,

31 PCB lii, July 20,

1978).

Citizens Utilities was to submit a schedule for final com-

pliance to the Agency no later than October

1,

1978.

However,

an

extension to November 18,

1978 was granted in

a subsequent vari-

ance (PCB 78—265,

31 PCB 711, October

19, 1978;

32 PCB 283, Decem-

ber 14,

1978).

Citizens Utilities ultimately filed its compliance

program with the Agency

(Pet.

Ex. B).

Citizens Utilities’ study determined that the cost effective

long term solution for wastewater treatment is regionalization

with one central plant.

The Northeastern Illinois Regional Planning

Commission in its 208 study recommended that WSB Plant No.

2

be

the regional plant.

Regional planning is underway.

However, im-

mediate closing of WSB No.

1 and routing of sewage to WSB No.

2

would interfere with regionalization.

Citizens Utilities seeks to

operate WSB No.

1 on an interim basis pending regionalization

(Pet.

10)

Citizens Utilities estimated that achieving compliance in the

short term with the 10/12 limitations would require capital costs

of $3,090,000 and an additional annual cost to each customer of

over $250,

a 326

increase over the current rates

(Pet.

10).

This

figure was disputed at the earlier hearings.

Citizens Utilities

also presented evidence that due to the

intermittent nature of Lily Cache Creek no significant or endanger-

ed species of aquatic life exist.

It had no secondary use and

could not be used for recreational purposes.

If the WSB No.

1 dis-

charge were removed the Creek would not sustain any fish life and

improvement in effluent quality would not enhance aquatic life

(Pet.

13).

These conclusions were also disputed at the earlier

hearings.

In the amended petition Citizens Utilities now requests ef-

fluent limitations of 20/25/15.

The variance is requested to and

including July

1,

1985.

Citizens Utilities intends to file on or

about Janaury

1,

1981 a petition for regulatory change for WSB No.

1 to provide a site specific regulation incorporating the 20/25/15

41—14

---

—5—

condition.

Citizens Utilities intends to prosecute its regulatory

proceeding on a timely

and

expeditious basis.

Citizens Utilities

will do such design, engineering, procurement, contracting and con-

struction as may be necessary to bring the plant into compliance

with whatever effluent limitations are effective and applicable on

July 2,

1985.

Citizens Utilities will commence work no later than

July 1,

1983.

Citizens Utilities has offered to provide assurance of com-

pletion of work before July 2,

1985.

However,

it asks that prose-

cution of its regulatory change be conditioned upon expeditious

participation by all other participants.

The compliance date

is

also subject to the Agency’s expeditious review of permit applica-

tions and delays arising from acts of God and causes not within

control of Citizens Utilities.

Citizens Utilities also agrees to continue efforts with the

manufacturer to keep its flow meters operating, to provide flow

data, to continue to file NPDES and other reports on

a timely

basis and to operate the WSB No.

1 in such manner as to minimize

transfer of influent to the pond consistent with continued compli-

ance with the variance effluent limitations.

The Agency has recommended a grant of the variance with the

20/25/15 limitation.

The Agency has recommended detailed condi-

tions which are similar to those offered by Citizens Utilities

with some differences.

The Agency has requested a performance

bond in an amount not to exceed the cost of construction.

The parties are in agreement that the variance should be con-

ditioned upon diligent pursuit of the regulatory change.

Citizens

Utilities wishes the 1983 date to be extended in the event the

regulatory proceeding is still pending or under appeal.

The 1985

date, however,

is to be subject only to postponement if there is

not expeditious review of permit applications or if there are de-

lays arising from causes not within the control of the petitioner.

The Agency wants both of these dates to be unconditional.

The Board declines to condition the variance on diligent pur-

suit of the regulatory change.

Such a condition could be difficult

to police.

If the variance is conditioned on a

firm

compliance

date then petitioner will have an incentive to avoid delay.

Citizens Utilities should be advised that two and one half

years is a tight schedule considering the many procedural obstacles

Board rulemaking must now confront.

Furthermore,

it

is unlikely

that the reclassification of stream segments

in R79-6 will reach

the area in question before 1983.

Petitioner will be obliged to commence construction by July

1,

1983.

Rule 902

of. Chapter 3 requires permit applications 180

41—15

---

—6—

days before the permit is needed.

This variance is not intended

as a variance from the requirement to obtain appropriate construc-

tion permits or authorizations.

Accordingly, Citizens Utilities

will be obliged to submit prior to January 2, 1983, permit applica-

tions for such construction as it intends to undertake.

The 1985 final compliance date will be conditioned on delays

arising from acts of God and causes not under control of Citizens

Utilities.

To condition this date upon expeditious review of per-

mit applications by the Agency would give Citizens Utilities the

opportunity to obtain delay merely by filing incomplete applica-

tions.

Citizens Utilities may file a petition for variance from

this Order to extend this date if other circumstances arise.

Although the grant of this variance contemplates a site speci-

ic regulation, the Board does not in any way intend to infer that

it has agreed to adopt any regulation which Citizens Utilities may

propose.

This will be treated as any other site specific regula-

tion.

In the event the Board rejects the regulatory proposal,

Citizens Utilities will be expected to comply with the generally

applicable standards by the 1985 date.

The Board notes that compliance with the regulations involved

in this proceeding was required many years

ago.

If Citizens Util-

ities had commenced upgrading before these deadlines had passed,

the Board would be more receptive to claims of hardship.

The hard-

ship now alleged is self-imposed to the extent that it is occasion-

ed by delays, including the dilatory prosecution of this case.

However, since the Citizens Utilities has agreed to

a compliance

plan with definite dates, the Board will grant the variance.

The

Board finds that it would impose an arbitrary and unreasonable

hardship to deny Citizens Utilities a variance under these circum-

stances.

The original petition requested a variance from the NPDES per-

mit conditions rather than the Board regulations.

Since the permit

conditions are not a “rule or regulation,

requirement or Order of

the Board,” Section

35 of the Act does not authorize variances

from

them.

Accordingly, the Board will grant the variance

from the

regulations which appear to require the permit conditions.

The

Agency will be ordered to modify the permit conditions pursuant to

Rule 914 and Section 39(b)

of the Act.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

4 1—16

---

*7—

ORDER

Petitioner Citizens Utilities Company of Illinois is

granted

a variance from Rules

404(c), 402.1(b) and 402

as it applies to

the ammonia nitrogen standard of Rule 203(f)

of Chapter

3,

sub--

1.

This variance will expire on July 2, 1985.

2.

This variance applies to effluent discharges from Peti-

tioner’s West Suburban Wastewater Treatment Plant No.

1

(WSB Plant

No.

1)

located at the intersection of Glengary Drive and Briar-

cliff Road in the Village of Bolingbrook.

3.

Petitioner shall meet the following interim effluent

limitations for five day biochemical oxygen demand

suspended solids

(TSS)

Monthly Average

Flow-weighted

BOD5

20 mg/i

TSS

25 mg/i

Ammonia Nitrogen

15 mg/i

30 mg/i

4.

On or before January 2, 1983 Petitioner shall submit to

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency a permit application

including

plans

and specifications for upgrading WSB Plant No.

1

to meet Chapter

3 limitations.

5.

On or before July 1, 1983 Petitioner shall commence such

design, engineering, procurement of major equipment items, con-

tract letting

and

construction as may be necessary for WSB Plant

No.

1 to be in compliance with then applicable effluent limita-

tions before July 2,

1985.

6.

On or before July 2, 1985 Petitioner shall be in compli-

ance with applicable effluent limitations for five day biochemical

oxygen demand, total suspended solids and ammonia nitrogen.

Com-

pliance with this condition before July 2, 1985 shall be excused

by delays arising from acts of God

or causes not within control

of the Petitioner.

7.

Within ninety days of the date of this Order, Petitioner

shall execute and forward to the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency a performance bond in a form acceptable to the Agency con-

ditioned upon compliance with paragraph

6 above.

41—17

---

—8—

8.

Petitioner shall operate WSB Plant No.

1 in such a manner

consistent with applicable NPDES permit and variance effluent

limitations.

9.

Petitioner shall on a continuous basis monitor the flow

which is diverted from plant No.

1 to the polishing pond and the

flow diverted to WSB Plant No.

2.

Petitioner shall keep in oper-

ating condition flow meters necessary to perform this monitoring.

Records of these flows shall be maintained for the period of this

variance.

Flow results shall be submitted to the Agency on a

monthly basis at the

same

time

as and together with the discharge

monitoring reports required by its NPDES permit.

10.

The Agency, pursuant to Rule 914 of Chapter 3:

Water

pollution,

the conditions set forth in this Order.

11.

Within forty-five days of the date of this Order, Peti--

tioner shall execute and forward to the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency, Variance Section, 2200 Churchill Road, Spring-

field, Illinois 62706,

a Certificate of Acceptance and Agreement

to be bound to all terms

and

conditions of this variance.

This

forty-five day period shall be held in abeyance for any period

this matter is being appealed.

The form of the Certificate shall

CERTIFICATION

I,

(We), _____________________________,

having read and

fully understanding

the

Order in PCB 78-313, hereby accept that

Order

and

SIGNED __________________________

TITLE

___________________________

DATE

___________________________

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Mr. Jacob D. Dumelle concurs.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board hereby çe~tifythat the above Opinion and Order

were ~dopted on the

~

~

day of

#S74,t,tL,

,

1981 by a vote

of

Christan L.

4offet

,

Illinois Pollution

trol Board