ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 14,
1978
DWIGHT CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 78-2
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Young):
This matter comes before the Board on
a Petition
filed on January
3,
1978,
by the Dwight Correctional
Center
(Center) for a variance from the Total Dissolved
Solids
(TDS)
limitations of Rule 203(f)
of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution,
of the Pollution Control Board Rules
and Regulations.
The Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
filed an initial recommendation
on February
2,
1978,
and an amended recommendation on October 26,
1978,
that the Petition be granted for a period of five years
subject to certain conditions.
No hearing was held;
the
Dwight Correctional Center waived the 90-day decision
requirement of Section
38 of the Environmental Protection
Act.
The parties submitted an extensive Stipulation of
Facts on October
26,
1978,
which described the existing
facilities
and current operation of the water treatment
system at the Center and a detailed process and cost
analysis of six alternative treatment methods considered
to achieve compliance with the water quality standard for
total dissolved solids of Rule 203(f) which specifies
a
maximum concentration of 1000 ing/l.
Rule 408(h) of Chapter
3 provides that total dissolved solids shall not he in-
creased more than 750 mg/i above background concentration
levels unless caused by recycling or other pollution abate-
ment practices,
and
in no event shall exceed 3500 mg/l at
any time.
The Center discharges
to the West Fork of the
Mazon River which has
a seven—day—ten—year low flow of
0.0 CFS
(Pet.
1;
Rec.
2;
Stip.
2).
32—2~3
9
—2—
The Dwight Correctional Center
is located approxi-
mately two miles west of Dwight, Livingston County,
Illinois,
and houses female persons committed
to the Illinois Depart-
ment of Corrections.
The total population,
residents and
staff,
is about
440; the estimated water usage
is 45,000
gallons per day
(Pet.
1;
Stip.
1)
.
Water
is supplied
from
either of two wells; TDS concentration
in water drawn from
Well
#1
is 1810 mg/l,
and from Well #2, most frequently
used,
1200 mg/l
(Stip.
1)
Raw well water
is softened
in
a. newly—installed
zeolite industrial-type water softening unit;
spent brine
and filter backwash water are discharged daily through
a
storm sewer to the West Fork of the Mazon River.
TDS
concentrations of the effluent thus discharged are 5,325
mg/l from Well
#2 and 9,226 mg/i from Well
#1
(Stip.
2)
The Center has requested FY 1980 Capital Development
Bond Act funds to install a storage
tank to collect the spent
brine and filter backwash and to discharge through the sani-
tary sewer.
The present TDS concentration of the sewage
treatment plant effluent is
1248 mg/l or approximately
48
mg/l above the raw water supply
if water
is being supplied
by Well
#2,
as
is the usual
case.
When the discharge from
the water treatment facility is combined with the sewage
treatment plant effluent, expected TDS concentration of the
combined effluent is 1,492 mg/i or 292 mg/l over the Well
#2 TDS background
(Pet.
3;
Rec.
2;
Stip.
2,
3).
The Agency recommendation and the Stipulation of Fact
report that at the nearest downstream monitoring station 23
miles downstream, no TDS water quality standard violations
were reported in 1975 or 1976 and that a biological survey
in 1976 indicated that the West Fork downstream is unbalanced,
indicating a somewhat decreased level of intolerant organisms
(Rec.
3;
Stip.
12)
The Petitioner and the Respondent
i~.gencystate that
no economical technology now exists for the removal of
soluable salts from wastewater
(Pec. 3~Stip.
12).
The Stipulation of Facts contains an examination and
comparison of six different alternative methods to achieve
compliance; only two of the candidate methods, reverse
osmosis and distillation, would achieve compliance
(Exh.
U;
Stip.
4,
12)
.
The costs of presently available technology
to achieve compliance are unreasonable
in light of the minimal
environmental
benefit
to
be
attained
and the high background
TDS
concentrations
in
the
raw
water.
3 2—240
—3—
The Board finds that Petitioner has made a sufficient
showing to justify a variance in this case and Petitioner
would suffer an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship if the
variance were denied at this time.
Petitioner will be
granted
a variance from Rule 203(f)
for a period of five
years
as that rule applies to total dissolved solids.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of
fact and conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDEP
1.
The Dwight Correctional Center
is granted
a
variance for the operation of its wastewater treatment
plant from Rule 203(f)
of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Regu-
lations, as that rule pertains to total dissolved solids
for
five years from the date of this Order, subject to the
following conditions:
a)
Petitioner
shall install
a spent brine
and filter backwash storage tank and
associated equipment to meter dis-
charge to the sanitary sewer
as soon
as practicable after funds are
authorized by the Capital Develop-
ment Board and appropriated by the
General Assembly.
b)
Petitioner
shall submit to the Agency
within four years of the date of this
Order a study summarizing changes
in
technology which may achieve compliance
and an investigation and cost analysis
of the feasibility of utilization of
another water
supply.
2.
The Agency, pursuant to Rule
914 of Chapter
3,
shall modify Petitioner’s NPDES permit consistent with the
conditions set forth in this Order including such interim
effluent limitations as may reasonably be achieved through
the application of best practicable operation and maintenance
practices
in the existing and proposed facilities.
3.
Within forty-five
(45)
clays of the date
of this
Order,
the Petitioner shall submit to the Manager, Variance
Section, Division of Water Pollution Control, Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Road, Spring-
field, Illinois,
62706, an executed Certification of Acceptance
and Agreement to be bound to all terms and conditions
of the
variance.
The forty-five day period herein shall he stayed
during judicial review of this variance pursuant to Section
31 of the Environmental Protection Act.
The form of said
certification shall be
as follows:
32—241
—4—
CERTIFICATION
I,
(We), __________________________ having
read the Order of the Pollution Control Board
in PCB 78—2, understand and accept said Order,
realizing that such acceptance renders all
terms and conditions thereto binding and en-
forceable.
SIGNED
TITLE
DATE
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan
L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
nion and Order were
Control Board, hereby certify
adopted on the
/~/~
day of
___________________,
1978 by
a
vote of
.2-0
Christan
L.
Moff
illinois Pollution Control Board
32—242