ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May
    1, 1981
    VILLAGE OF WAUCONDA,
    Petitioner,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 81—17
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J.D.
    Dumelle):
    On February
    4,
    1981 the Village of Wauconda
    (Wauconda)
    filed a petition for variance from the phosphorus limitation
    of Rule 407(c) of Chapter 3:
    Water Pollution and from sub-
    paragraph 5 of the Board’s Order in PCB 77—191
    (February
    2,
    1978).
    On March 27,
    1981, the Illinois Environmental Proteciton
    Agency
    (Agency)
    filed a recommendation to grant a variance from
    Rule 404 of Chapter
    3, but to deny the Rule 407(c) request.
    Hearing was waived and none was held.
    Wauconda owns and operates a sewage treatment plant which
    provides secondary treatment and has a design population
    equivalent of 8,000.
    Discharge is to Bangs Lake Creek which
    flows approximately two miles to Slocum Lake which is tributary
    to the Fox River.
    On August
    4,
    1977 Wauconda was granted
    a variance (PCB 77-125)
    from Rules 203(c) and 402 of Chapter
    3 until January
    1,
    1981
    or until the Board modified the phosphorus standards.
    That
    standard was modified on April 26,
    1979.
    On February
    2, 1978
    the Board granted Wauconda variance
    (PCB 77—191) from Rule 404(f)
    of Chapter
    3 until February
    2,
    1981 subject to several conditions.
    These included an order that Wauconda complete construction of an
    outfall sewer around Bangs Lake Creek and Slocum Lake by February
    2,
    1981 (subparagraph 5).
    Wauconda is currently in the construction grants program
    for upgrading its wastewater treatment facilities.
    Its Facilities
    Plan
    is awaiting final Agency approval.
    Wauconda alleges that
    completion date of construction will be December 31,
    1984.
    This
    nearly four—year delay has been caused by the necessity of
    amending the Facilities Plan three times in response to federal
    and state regulatory changes.
    The Agency agrees that the
    delays have not been caused by Wauconda.
    In determining whether variance from the phosphorus
    limitation of Rule 407(c)
    should be granted, the Board must
    41—33 1

    —2—
    first consider the environmental
    impact.
    That impact is upon
    Slocum Lake which was the subject of a 1975 study conducted by
    the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
    That study
    indicated that the lake is highly eutrophic, ranking 27th of 31
    lakes studied.
    Further, Wauconda’s wastewater treatment plant was
    found to contribute nearly 53
    of the total phosphorus loading.
    The study recommended that “all phosphorus imputs should he
    minimized.”
    A 1977 Department of Conservation letter noted
    “intense algal blooms...and
    numerous summer and winter fish
    kills.”
    Later,
    it stated that “the lake is nothing but an
    oxidation pit for the effluent it receives.”
    According to discharge monitoring reports
    (DMR’s)
    submitted
    by Waucorida, average phosphorus levels have ranged from 6.5
    to 15 mg/l
    since August of 1977 in contrast to Rule 407(c)’s
    requirement of 1.0 mg/l and Wauconda’s NPDES permit’s 3.0
    ing/l condition.
    These levels are inexcusably high and certainly
    contribute in large measure to the eutrophication of Slocum
    Lake.
    The Board fails to understand how the Agency could have
    permitted these levels to continue for 2½ years without bringing
    an enforcement action against Wauconda.
    The Board does, however, understand why the Agency opposes
    the granting of variance with respect to phosphorus.
    Not
    only has a substantial adverse environmental impact been
    demonstrated, but Wauconda fails to allege any hardship in
    meeting the 1.0 mg/l standard.
    Cost of compliance
    (short
    of completion of the $4.57 million plant improvements) is
    noticeably missing from the pleadings.
    In this regard the
    Board takes notice of its Opinion in R76—1
    (32PC13598;
    Feb.
    15,
    1979)
    in which the Board finds that for systems of greater
    than 5,000 population equivalents,
    a 1.0 mg/l limitation is
    economically reasonable.
    This is especially true where,
    as
    here,
    substantial environmental harm has been shown.
    Thus, the Board finds that Wauconda has not proven an
    arbitrary or unreasonable hardship with regard to the phosphorus
    limitation of Rule 407(c), and that variance should be denied.
    This means that Wauconda must necessarily improve its phosphorus
    treatment prior to the construction of permanent improvements to its
    plant.
    The present jerrybuilt system which functions inter-
    mittently and freezes in the winter is wholly unacceptable.
    Equipment for dosing the effluent with phosphorus-removing
    chemicals can probably be selected that can be re-installed
    into the new plant.
    The variance request from subparagraph 5 of the Order
    in PCB 77—191 does not suffer from the same shortcomings.
    Although the petition is somewhat short on allegations of
    environmental harm,
    enough information is given to allow the
    Board to take notice of its findings in PCB 77—191 since the
    situation has remained relatively unchanged since that time.
    Therefore,
    for the same reasons
    as expressed in PCB 77—191,
    the Board finds that Wauconda is unable to meet a 10 mg/I
    standard for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
    or a 12 mg/l
    standard for suspended solids
    (SS) prior to upgrading and
    41—332

    —3—
    expansion of its facilities,
    MDR’s show average ranges of
    19 to 38 mg/i BOD,~and 21 to 37 mg/i SS.
    Further, the Board
    finds that Waucon~ahas been diligent in its efforts to achieve
    compliance.
    Therefore,
    the Board finds that denial of the
    requested variance would constitute an arbitrary and unreasonable
    hardship.
    Further, and again for the same reasons as the
    earlier variance,
    the Board will impose the same conditions
    as in PCB 77—191 with the exception that the final completion
    date shall be no later than December 31,
    1984.
    A variance from
    Rule 404 is also necessary for complete relief and will be
    granted for the same reasons.
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
    and conclusions of law in this matter.
    ORDER
    The Village of Wauconda is hereby denied variance from
    Rule 407(c) of Chapter 3 and granted variance until
    December 31,
    .1984 from Rule 404 of Chapter
    3 and subparagraph
    5 of the
    Order
    in PCB 77—191,
    subject to the following conditions:
    1.
    That Wauconda shall immediately begin to upgrade
    and expand its existing sewage treatment plant;
    2.
    That during the interim until construction
    is completed,
    Wauconda shall
    limit its effluent discharge to
    30/30 mg/i BOD5 and suspended solids,
    respectively;
    3.
    That upon completion of its upgraded sewage
    breatrnent
    plant, Wauconda’s effluent shall
    not exceed 10/12
    mg/i BOD5 and SS, respectively;
    4.
    That Wauconda install and utilize nitrification
    equipment, acceptable
    to the Agency, at its new
    plant;
    5.
    That Wauconda begin and complete construction of
    an outfall sewer around Bangs Lake
    Creek
    and
    Slocum Lake,
    with discharge to an unnamed tribu-
    tary to the Fox River,
    as soon as funds become
    available, but in no event
    later than three years
    from the date of this Order;
    6.
    That Wauconda report semi—annually to the Agency
    on its financial ability to install
    the
    outfall
    sewer identified in paragraph
    (5) above;
    and that
    7.
    Within 45 days of the adoption of this Order,
    the Village of Wauconda shall execute and forward
    to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
    2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706
    a Certification of Acceptance and Agreement to be
    41—33:3

    —4—
    bound to all terms and conditions of this Order.
    The 45 day period shall be held in abeyance during
    any period this matter is being appealed,
    The form
    of said certification shall he as follows:
    CERTIFICATION
    I
    (We), __________________________ having read and
    fully understanding the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board in PCB 81-17 hereby accept said Order and agree
    to be
    hound by all of the terms and conditions thereof,
    SIGNED
    _______________
    TITLE__________________
    DATE___________________
    I,
    Christan
    L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted
    on the
    ~
    ~
    day of
    1)’)
    ,
    1981 by a vote of
    ~‘-/~
    ~_.
    C)
    I
    ~
    ~
    ~
    . ~
    ~/)
    ~4i~~
    Christan
    L. Moffett,. Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    41—334

    Back to top