ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January
8,
1981
VILLAGE
OF HOMEWOOD,
)
Petitioner,
v~
)
PCB 80~1O3
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Respondent
WALTER 0. CUMMINGS
APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF THE
PETITIONER,
PHILLIP R. VAN
NESS
APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF
THE
RESPONDENT,
OPINION AND
ORDER
OF THE BOARD
(by J,D,
Dumelle):
On May
12,
1980,
the Village of Homewood
(Homewood)
filed a
Variance Petition
seeking variance from Rules
401,
402,
404,
405,
406 and 203(f)
of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board Rules and
Regulations,
Chapter
3:
Water Pollution,
On June
12,
1980,
the
Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed
a Motion
for Extension
of Time to File Variance Recommendation,
based
upon
difficulties
in arranging discussions with individuals
having
authority
to
approve the Agency’s recommendation,
The
Agency
Recommendation
was filed on July
10,
1980, recommending
denial
of variance,
largely on the basis of Homewood~s failure
to
adequately
answer certain questions raised by the Board
in
PCB 79—133
(~3~~aeofHomewood
v.
IEP~A,
December 13,
1979,
37 PCB 17).
These questions concerned the reasons
for a
five—year delay
in compliance with the Board’s
1972 Water
Pollution
Regulations and for failure to monitor
ammonia
nitrogen levels.
On July 17,
1980,
Homewood filed an
Amended
Petition
which attempted
to answer these questions.
On August
21,
1980,
the
Agency again moved for an extension of time
to file
a
recommendation,
for the same reason as its first such
motion.
The Amended
Recommendation was filed on August 27,
1980,
recommending
that the variance be granted subject to
certain
conditions.
On September 19,
1980,
a pre~hearing
conference
was held
at which the parties identified and discussed
the
remaining
issues:
whether the 2,000 mg/I total
dissolved solids
(TDS)
limitation
requested would be too inflexible
based upon
high background
TDS concentrations,
whether
variance is needed
to raise present
permit limitations on daily
average flow
(DAF),
and the length
of the variance,
As
a result of
this
conference,
the Agency filed a Second
Amended Petition
on November
3,
1980,
again recommending
that the variance be granted
subject to
conditions.
40—237
—2—
Hearing was held on October 24,
1980.
Two Homewood
employees and one member of the public were present.
The Agency’s June 12 and August 21, 1980 Motions for
Extension of Time are hereby granted.
Hornewood operates a wastewater treatment facility which
receives domestic wastewater from most areas within the corporate
limits and from a few surrounding areas.
These wastes are
treated in a 3.5 million gallon per day
(MGD) facility.
Flows of
up to 4.5 MGD receive secondary treatment,
are pumped to
finishing ponds and are chlorinated.
Flows over 4.5 MGD receive
at least primary settling and chlorination.
At 10.5
1~4GDpond
treatment must be essentially bypassed and chlorine contact time
becomes inadequate.
The effluent is discharged into Butterfield
Creek which empties into Thorn Creek, then to the Little Calumet
River and is, apparently,
ultimately received by the Des Plaines
River
(Pet.
Ex.
2).
This facility went into operation in 1969 and was not
designed for ammonia reduction.
The ammonia nitrogen limitation
became effective
in 1972 and compliance was required by December
31,
1973,
(Rule 203(f) of Chapter
3).
It is
only
since 1977 that
plant effluent has been checked
for ammonia content.
Homewood
apparently cannot explain
its
failure to test for ammonia from
1972 to 1977, but does note that this occurred prior to the
hiring of its present operator and that the turnover in key
Homewood personnel may have contributed to it.
Further, Homewood
alleges that weather—related delays
have slowed progress on
completion of
a Sewer System Evaluation Survey
(SSES).
The
Agency
is aware of no facts that contradict Homewood’s account.
The history of
the plant and the
flow conditions of the
sewer system demonstrate why permitted effluent limitations
cannot presently be met.
An Infiltration/Inflow
(I/I) Analysis
(Wastewater Management—facilities Planning Report,
Baxter and
Woodman,
Inc.,
June,
1977, revised February,
1978) shows that the
sewer system receives excessive amounts
of I/I at
times of
moderate to excessive runnoff from
rain
or melting snow.
At
these
times effluent limitations are exceeded.
Compliance with the Environmental Protection Act
(Act) and
the Board’s Regulations cannot be accomplished until Homewood can
complete sewer rehabilitation
and
construction of wastewater
treatment plant improvements or
can
connect
to
a regional
wastewater treatment authority.
Either of these events would
constitute Step
3 work under
the
federal construction grant
program.
The cost of such improvements
is estimated to be $8.5
million.
While compliance cannot be attained prior to the completion
of Step 3 work, Homewood has taken some steps to improve the
plant’s effectiveness.
These include the cleaning of the primary
aerated pond in August,
1977
($42,000), the modification of the
40—238
—3—
aerobic digester,
air lines and sludge handling in 1977 and 1978
($60,000), the initiation of a sludge disposal program
($60,000/year),
the hiring of
a Class
I operator in August,
1977,
and the addition of a staff position in June,
1977.
$140,000 in
additional funds have been allocated for additional pond cleaning
and improvements to drying beds.
As a result, initiated
modifications show definite improvements in effluent quality
since August,
1977.
It is alleged that the ammonia limitation could be met in
the short term with break-point chlorination.
However,
this
would allegedly cost $600,000.
TDS limitations can be met by
Homewood obtaining its water supply from Lake Michigan.
Its Lake
Michigan water allocation has now been set.
Meeting the fecal
coliform limitation could be accomplished by building larger
tanks for chlorine contact or by moving the chlorine application
point to the secondary pond.
However, chlorine addition is
presently under consideration by the Board in R77—12
(Docket D)
and Homewood alleges that present investment in this area would
be unwise.
While the mere pendancy of a regulatory proceeding is
insufficient evidence of hardship, the other factors are
persuasive.
The Board notes that the only allegation concerning
environmental impact is that, based upon the effluent improvement
over the last few years,
it will be less than it has been.
However,
neither Homewood nor the Agency alleges what the past
impact has been.
Local funding of the $8.5 million improvements would be
unreasonable.
The Board, therefore, finds that immediate
compliance would be an unreasonable hardship upon Homewood and
that there will be no significant adverse environmental impact.
Although a five year variance was originally requested,
the
parties have agreed that the variance shall extend to January
1,
1982,
or until
60 days after the completion of the SSES,
whichever occurs first,
This will allow
for review of this
variance after the costs and methods of compliance have become
clearer.
Any future variance request should include a full
discussion of the environmental impact.
The limitations to be set for the effluent from the
treatment facility have been agreed to and are based upon present
discharges.
Although quantity limitations were also requested,
the Board declines to order them since variance is given from
Board regulations which are expressed in terms of concentration.
The requested chlorine limitation has also not been ordered since
there is presently no such limitations
in the Board’s rules or
regulations. Further, variance from Rule 406 is not required
since the Homewood facility has an untreated waste load of less
than 50,000 population equivalents and, therefore,
is not covered
by that rule.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
40—239
—4—
ORD
ER
1.
The Village of Homewood is hereby granted a variance
from Rules 203(f)
as it relates to Ammonia Nitrogen and
total dissolved solids,
401(c),
402 as it relates to
those limitations for which variance has been given,
404 and 405 of Chapter 3:
Water Pollution,
until
January 1,
1982 or until
60 days after completion of
the SSES,
whichever occurs
first,
subject to the
conditions that the effluent from the treatment
facility not exceed the following limitations:
BOD
(concentration)
20 mg/l
30 day average
30 mg/i
7 day average
TSS (concentration)
20 mg/l
30 day average
30 mg/l
7 day average
Fecal Coliform
unlimited on days when
flow exceeds 4.5 MGD,
400/100 ml at all
other times
Ammonia Nitrogen
17.5 mg/i
daily maximum
TDS
2,000 mg/i
2.
Petitioner shall report to the Agency in writing not
later than August
1,
1981, when and how a conversion
to the use of Lake Michigan water will take place.
3.
Pursuant to Rule 914 of Chapter
3, the Agency is
directed to modify Homewood’s NPDES permit to reflect
these limitations.
4.
Within 45 days after the date of this Order Peititoner
shall execute and forward to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, Variance Section,
2200 Churchill
Road,
Springfield,
Illinois 62706 and to the Pollution
Control Board
a Certification of Acceptance and
Agreement to be bound to all terms and conditions of
the variance.
The form of said Certification shall be
as follows:
40—240
—5--
CERTIFICATION
The Village of Homewood, having read and fully understanding
the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
in PCB 80-103
hereby accepts said Order and agrees to be hound by all
terms
and conditions thereof.
Signed
Title
Date
tT IS SO ORDERED.
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
___________-,
1980 by
a vote
of
.
-
~-
~
/
.,
Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
40—24 1