ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August 24, 1978

VILLAGE OF FISHER,

Petitioner,

V.

)

PCB 78—162

)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Young):

This matter comes before the Board on an Amended Petition

filed on June 19, 1978, by the Village of Fisher for a five-

year variance

fror1~tthe total

iron, the total dissolved solids

(TDS)

and the chloride water quality standards of Rule 203(f)

and Rule 402 in Chapter

3:

Water Pollution Rules and Regula-

tions.

On July 28, 1978,

the Environmental Protection Agency

filed its Recommendation in favor of a variance from the TDS

and the chloride water quality standards; however, the Agency

recommended relief not be granted from the total iron standard

because Petitioner may meet this requirement using conventional

water treatment technology.

No

hearing was held in this matter;

hearing was waived in the

Amended

Petition.

The Village of Fisher, Champaign County,

Illinois, owns

and operates

a municipal water treatment plant and a sewage

treatment plant serving

a population of 1780.

The municipal

treatment plant consists of a modified activated sludge package

plant tributary to

a 5-day retention lagoon with a design capacity

of 0.151 MGD which discharges to an intermittent stream known as

Owl Creek upstream from the Sangamon River and Lake Decatur.

The

wastes which cause the water quality problem for which variance

is sought originate at the municipal water treatment plant, par-

ticularly its iron removal and its ion—exchange softening treat-

ment processes.

Before discharging to the Fisher STP, the

water treatment wastes are aerated and filtered for iron removal

and treated to remove calcium and magnesium, but this treatment

and the conventional package sewage plant process fall short of

removing salt concentrations to meet the applicable water quality

standards in Owl Creek

(Pet.

1,

2,

3).

As mandated by Rule 203(f) of Chapter

3,

effluent from Peti-

tioner~ssewage treatment plant may not exceed concentrations of

1.0 mg/i total iron,

500 mg/i chloride and 1000 mg/l total

dissolved solids

(TDS).

In addition, where downstream water

quality standards will continually be violated, the Village of

31—299

---

—2—

Fisher

is required to meet the water quality standards as an

effluent limitation unless Petitioner is granted a variance

from Rule 402 in addition to the applicable provisions of

Rule 203(f).

Under existing conditions in the Village of Fisher, Peti-

tioner claims that it could not meet these requirements unless

the discharge from the municipal water plant were discontinued

or diverted elsewhere.

At present, Petitioner has proposed

a facilities plan to upgrade and expand the present water

plant.

Anticipated improvements consist of installing an

4’Aeralator,”

a package iron removal system incorporating an

induced draft aerator,

a small holding tank and a four—celled

coal—media filter followed by three ion—exchange softeners.

V~astesfrom these processes are designed to be held in a 48-

hour detention tank for discharge at

a constant rate to the

municipal sewage treatment plant.

Upon completion, Petitioner

contends that the effluent quality from the Fisher STP is

expected to achieve maximum 30—day averages of 2.7,

521 and

1261 rng/l for total iron chloride and TDS concentrations

respectively

(Pet.

2,

3,

4).

Petitioner states that to require further improvement

on these projected effluent quality figures would impose an

arbitrary and unreasonable hardship.

In support of this

position, Petitioner has submitted figures which indicate

that the Village’s salt contributions to the downstream

watercourse will be minimal.

At 1978 operational levels,

Petitioner’s maximum daily discharge is estimated to be

3.9,

705 and 1666 pounds per day for total

iron, chloride

and TDS as compared to 368,

16,373 and 176,007 pounds per

day mean dry weights of the respective salts

in the Sangamon

fliver upstream from Lake Decatur.

Further reductions in

chloride or TDS concentrations at Fisher would involve re-

verse osmosis or evaporation to concentrate the brine waste

prior to landfill disposal or by hauling the unconcentrated

filter backwash and brine wastes to a landfill; the Peti-

tioner states that the costs of such alternatives are prohibi-

tive for this and other small water treatment operations

(Pet.

4,

5,

6).

The Agency supports Petitioner’s contribution analysis

and cost assessment of brine waste control technology; however,

the Agency also notes that Petitioner has made no provision

for iron removal at its proposed water treatment facility.

The Agency claims that Petitioner could employ slow sand

f

ii-

ters for removal of iron from the water plant’s filter backwash

to bring the sewage treatment plant into compliance with

the

total iron water quality standard of Chapter

3.

31—300

---

—3-.

In similar cases, the Board has required small communities

to employ slow sand filters for iron removal prior to discharge.

Village.of Potomac, PCB 77—224,

19 PCB 224, City of Leroy, PCB

74—231,

14 PCB 609.

In this matter, we find nothing to persuade

us that this technology cannot be implemented by Fisher.

The Board finds that it would be an arbitrary and unreasonable

hardship to require that Petitioner meet the chloride and TDS

water quality standard and will, therefore,

grant a 5—year variance

from these requirements in Rule 203(f)

and Rule 402 to Petitioner’s

sewage treatment plant.

Petitioner will also be granted a variance

from the total iron requirements of Rules 203(f)

and 402 for one

year or until Petitioner’s proposed water treatment facility be-

comes operational, whichever occurs first.

The Board will direct the Agency to modify Petitioner’s

NPDES permit consistent with this Order pursuant to Rule 914 of

Chapter

3 to include interim effluent limitations as may reasonably

be achieved through application of best practicable operation and

maintenance practices in the existing facilities.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

1.

The Village of Fisher

is granted a variance for the opera-

tion of its sewage treatment plant from Rules

203(f)

and 402 of

Chapter

3:

Water Pollution Rules and Regulations regarding chloride

and total dissolved solids until August 24,

1983,

subject to the

following conditions:

a)

During the period of this variance,

the

Village shall operate

its sewage and

water treatment plant to achieve the

minimum discharge of chloride and total

dissolved solids consistent with the

capabilities of existing equipment and

process.

b)

The Village shall also submit annual

reports to the Environmental Protection

Agency on its efforts to discover new,

more cost-effective means of treating

brine wastes generated by its ion—

exchange softening units.

2.

The Village of Fisher

is granted a variance for the opera-

tion of its sewage treatment plant from Rules

203(f)

and 402 of

Chapter

3:

Water Pollution Rules and Regulations regarding total

iron until August 24,

1979, or until the facility improvements

at its water treatment plant become operational, whichever occurs

first,

subject to the following conditions:

31—301

---

—4—

a)

During the period of this variance,

the

Village shall operate its sewage and

water treatment plant to achieve minimum

discharge of total iron consistent with

the capabilities of existing equipment

and process.

b)

The Village shall also provide means for

removing the total iron from its filter

backwash water generated at its water

treatment plant.

3.

Petitioner, within

30 days of the date of this Order,

shall request Agency modification of its NPDES permit to incor-

porate all conditions of the variance set forth herein.

4.

The Agency pursuant to Rule

914 of Chapter

3 shall modi-

fy the Petitioner’s NPDES permit consistent with the conditions

set forth

in this Order including such interim effluent lirnita-

tions as may reasonably be achieved through application of best

practicable operation and maintenance practices in the existing

facilities.

5.

Within forty—five

(45) days of the date of this Order,

the Petitioner shall submit to the Manager, Variance Section,

Division of Water Pollution Control, Illinois Environmental

Protection Acjency,

2200 Churchill Road,

Springfield,

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 be stayed during judicial

review of this variance pursuant to Section 41 of the Environ-

mental Protection Act.

The form of said certification shall

be as follows:

CERTIFICATION

I,

(We), _____________________________

having read

the Order of the Pollution Control Board in PCB 78-162,

understand and accept said Order,

realizing that such

acceptance renders all terms and conditions thereto

binding and enforceable.

SIGNED

TITLE

DATE

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Mr. Goodman abstained.

31—302

---

—5—

I, Christan L.

Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board,

hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were

adopted on the

~

day of

________________,

1978

by

a vote

Christan L. Moffe~y)Clerk

Illinois Pollution ~bntrol Board