ILLI1~IS
    POLLUTION
    CONTROL
    BOARD
    April
    27,
    1978
    VILLAGL
    OF
    PATOKA,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB
    78—7
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    OPINION
    AND
    ORDER
    OF
    TIlE
    BOARD
    (by
    Mr.
    Young):
    This
    matter
    comes
    before
    the
    Board
    on
    a
    Petition
    for
    Variance filed on January
    6,
    1978,
    by
    the Village of Patoka
    seeking permanent relief from the Water Pollution Regulations:
    Chapter
    3,
    Rules
    203(c)
    and 402
    (phosphorus)
    and Rule 404(f)
    as it applies
    to biochemical oxygen demand
    (BOD5)
    and total
    suspended solids
    (TSS)
    .
    The Village of P~toka filed an
    Amended
    Petition
    on February
    6,
    1978, r?~~Linq relief for
    five
    years.
    On
    March
    14,
    1978,
    the Environmental Protection
    Agency filed its Recommendation
    in suppo~tof the Amended
    Petition.
    No hearing was held in this matter.
    The Village of Patoka,
    a small xural community of 580
    in
    Marion County,
    Illinois,
    owns and
    c eraL~n sewage treatment
    works consisting of a single-cell lagoon ~oLLha design capacity
    of 700 P.E.
    The effluent from the treatmont lagoon is discharged
    to an unnamed tributary of the North Fcr~ cf the Kaskaskia River
    which
    flows into Carlyle Lake.
    The dis
    unr~eis approximately
    8.2 stream miles from Carlyle Lake.
    Effluent time of travel at
    7-day 10-year low flow conditions
    is estImated at 2.9 days from
    Petitioner’ s discharge
    to point of entry into Car yle J.~ake.
    The ViJ
    1
    nije
    a
    I
    PaLoka
    is
    presuit
    LI y
    CDflS
    id(
    ~
    i
    nq
    iiiea s ures
    for
    ungrading
    it.s wastewater
    treatment loqoon.
    Current efforts
    focus
    on
    preparing
    facilities
    planning
    under
    federal
    Step
    I
    funding.
    Anticipated improvements involving Step II and Step III
    grants include a three—cell non—aerated pond system followed by
    intermittent sand filtration with disinfection and,
    if necessary,
    reaeration facilities
    (Pet.
    Exh.
    1)
    .
    The proposed treatment
    lagoon improvements are designed
    to meet the Board~seffluent
    limitations and water quality standards except
    those which are
    the subject of this variance.
    The Petition at page
    4 suggests
    that these improvements could be completed ~y May,
    1980, assuming,
    of course, no delays
    in federal construction grant funding.
    30-I
    19

    Rules
    203(c)
    and
    402
    (Phosphorus)
    Rule 203(c) establishes
    a standard of 0.05 mg/l for
    phosphorus
    as
    P in any reservoir or lake or
    in any stream
    at the point where it enters the reservoir or lake; Rule 402
    requires that Petitioner’s effluent not contribute to a viola-
    tion of Rule 203(c) water quality standard.
    As indicated in
    Appendix E to the Petition
    (sheet 5), the phosphorus concentra-
    tion in the North Fork downstream from Petitioner’s discharge
    exceeds the 0.05 mg/l standard.
    Therefore, Petitioner’s effluent
    concentration is limited to the water quality standard of 0.05
    mg/i phosphorus.
    Information from the National Eutrophication Survey
    (NES)
    indicates that phosphorus was the rate-limiting nutrient for
    algae growth in Carlyle Lake in May,
    1973, when samples were
    collected
    (Pet,
    p3); however,
    the Army Corps of Engineers con-
    cludes from a limited sediment study that sunlight is the factor
    regulating organic growth in the lake
    (Pet.
    Supp.).
    According
    to other NES data, Cariyle Lake while eutrophic
    is ranked ninth
    out of
    31
    Illinois lakes studied in this survey.
    Figures
    from
    the sampling data conclude that non—point sources account for
    97
    of the nhosphorus
    loading to Carlyle Lake.
    The contributions
    of phosphorus
    from the Patoka treatment facility and the North
    Fork of the Kaskaskia River are estimated at less
    than 0.1
    and
    1.9
    respectively
    (Pet.
    Exh.
    3, p3,
    12),
    The Village of Patoka claims that compliance with 0.05 mg/i
    standard would impose an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship
    (Pet.
    p3).
    In support of this position, Petitioner submitted an
    evaluation of three treatment alternatives including land applica-
    tion,
    chemical treatment,
    and diversion to another watershed.
    The Petitioner alleges and the Agency agrees that use of any of
    the three alternatives would work an economic hardship upon this
    community
    (Pet.
    p8, Rec. p4).
    The Board
    is familiar with the problems f~ciop municpal
    (I i s(~F1a
    rcp ~rs
    i n
    m’
    i
    wj
    pliospho
    r
    U:;
    :;
    I~a
    Win
    Is
    y
    ci
    iiocpes
    ton,
    PCi~
    76—234,
    24
    PCP
    441;
    Souliturn
    Illinois
    Iinjver~.t
    ly
    ~t
    Edwards—
    yule,
    PCB
    77—111,
    25
    PCI3
    775;
    Vail
    icy Watei:__Company,
    Inc.
    ,
    PCB
    77—146,
    25 PCB 289.
    In those and other cases,
    the Agency and the Board have
    recognized that
    it is economically impractical for the petitioners
    to comply with the current phosphorus limitation of Chapter
    3.
    In addition,
    the Agency has petitioned
    the Board in regulatory
    proposal R76-l for appropriate amendments
    to the phosphorus
    effluent and
    water
    quality standards of the Water Pollution Regu-
    lations.
    If regulatory proposal R76-1 were adopted as proposed,
    the Village of Patoka would be relieved of the requirement
    to
    treat to 0.05 mg/i.
    30-120

    —3—
    The Board finds that Petitioner would suffer an arbitrary
    and unreasonable hardship if required
    to meet the existing 0.05
    mg/i standard.
    Petitioner will be granted
    a
    variance from
    Rule
    203(c)
    and 402 for five years ~
    the Board adopts a regu-
    lation change under R76-l, whichever occurs first subject to
    the conditions of the Order.
    Rule 404(f)
    (BOD~,/TotalSuspended Solids)
    In this Petition,
    the Village of Patoka also seeks
    a
    variance from the 4 mg/i BOD5 and the
    5 mg/i total suspended
    solids effluent limitation of Rule
    404(1).
    In October, 1976,
    the Village submitted a formal request for a lagoon exemption
    which the Agency found inconclusive and denied
    (Rec. App. C).
    In support of their request, the Village presented calculations
    using modified Streeter-Pheips
    equation in attempt to demonstrate
    that its discharge would not violate the dissolved oxygen standard
    in Carlyle Lake.
    However, application of the Streeter—Pheips
    equation is limited to free flowing streams and stream travel times
    in excess of
    5 days.
    In this case,
    the Agency found that insuffi-
    cient stream travel time
    (2.9 days)
    precluded use of the Streeter-
    Phelps equation thus
    requiring the Village
    to either undertake
    the extraordinary costs
    of a modeling study for determining down-
    stream dissolved oxygen conditions or to seek this variance from
    the
    Board.
    The Agency believes
    that Petitioner’s upgraded facility will
    not violate the dissolved oxygen standards in Carlyle Lake
    (Rec.
    p4)
    and recommends
    that Petitioner he granted a variance from the
    dissolved oxygen requirements of Rule 404(f)(ii)(B)
    (Rec.
    4).
    The
    Agency recommendation included a summary of Petitioner’s
    prior
    submissions
    to the Agency including Streeter—Pheips calculations
    indicating that Petitioner’s discharge would exert a dissolved
    oxygen demand of 0.07 mg/i in the stream at the end of a 2.9 day
    travel, conclusions from Petitioner’s study that the discharge
    dissipates before reaching Carlyle Lake during 7-day 10-year low
    F
    ow
    cond it:
    ion:;
    (TThc
    .
    /\pp
    .
    13)
    ,
    am
    I
    cos
    L
    ~‘st~mates
    of
    a1 ternative
    methods
    of compliance
    (1~cc
    .
    The Village of Patoka and the Agency have investigated alterna-
    tive treatment methods
    as
    a means
    for meeting the 4/5 BOD/TSS
    requirements.
    Pumping to a different watershed would result in a
    $1.04/bOO gallon monthly additional user charge,
    and land applica-
    tion is estimated at
    a monthly increase of $3.49/bOO
    gallons.
    In
    all
    cases,
    the Petitioner
    claims, and the Agency does not dispute,
    that the cost of compliance with the BOD5/TSS standard would impose
    an unreasonable economic burden for the Patoka community causing
    an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship
    (Pet. p3-8;
    Rec.
    p4).
    In view of the difficulty and expense which would be involved
    for the Petitioner
    in this instance to demonstrate compliance with
    Rule
    404(f) (ii) (B);
    the minimal effect of the discharge on dissolved
    oxygen levels
    in Lake Carlyle;
    and the cost of alternative methods
    30_ 121

    —4--
    of disposal,
    the Board will grant relief from Rule 404(f) (ii) (B)
    provided that all other requirements of that rule,
    including
    effluent
    concentration
    limitations
    of
    10 mg/i of BOD5 and 12 mg/l
    of
    suspended
    solids
    are
    met.
    The Board will direct the Agency to modify Petitioner’s
    NPDES Permit IL 0028396 consistent with this Order oursuant
    to
    Rule 914 of Chapter
    3 and to include interim effluent limitations
    as may be reasonably achieved through application of best practi-
    cable 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 Patoka is granted a variance for the
    operation of its wastewater treatment plant from Rules
    203(c)
    and 402 of Chapter
    3:
    Water Pollution Rules and Regulations
    regarding phosphorus until April
    13,
    1983, subject to the
    followiriq conditions:
    a)
    This variance will earlier terminate upon
    adoption by the Board of any modification
    of the existing phosphorus water quality
    standards and effluent limitations and
    the Village
    shall comply with such revised
    regulations when adopted by the Board.
    b)
    Petitioner shall provide space
    in its
    design for storage of chemicals, and for
    mixing and dosing equipment capable of
    meeting a phosphorus effluent concentra-
    tion of
    1 mg/i,
    or to whatever alternative
    level
    may
    be
    established
    by
    the
    Board.
    c)
    In the event that grant funds become
    aval lab
    le
    during the period ol
    t
    hi:;
    variance,
    the Village shall
    incoroorate
    in any design and specification adequate
    provision for the installation of equip-
    ment for the removal
    of phosphorus which
    will provide
    the best practicable treat-
    ment technology for the removal of phos-
    phorus over the life of the works.
    2.
    The Village of Patoka is granted a variance
    from Rule
    404(f) (ii) (B) of Chapter
    3:
    Water Pollution Rules and Regulations
    until April 13,
    1983, subject to the following conditions:
    30—122

    —5—
    a)
    Petitioner shall actively pursue con-
    struction grant funding to construct
    facilities
    as described in Exhibit 1
    of
    the
    Petition
    for
    Variance
    and
    this
    Order or other such facilities which
    provide
    an equivalent degree of treat-
    ment.
    b)
    Petitioner shall meet all requirements
    of Rule 404(f) (ii)
    of Chapter
    3 except
    those exempted by this Order.
    3.
    Petitioner,within
    30 days of the date of this Order,
    shall
    request
    Agency
    modification
    of
    NPDES
    Permit
    IL
    0028396
    to incorporate all conditions of the variance set forth herein.
    4.
    The
    Agency,
    pursuant
    to
    Rule
    914
    of
    Chapter
    3,
    shall
    modify NPDES Permit IL 0028396 consistent with the conditions
    set forth in this Order including such interim effluent limita-
    tions
    as may reasonably be achieved through the 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 Agency,
    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
    suspended
    during
    judicial
    review of this variance pursuant to Section
    31 of the Environ-
    mental Protection Act.
    The form of said certification shall be
    as follows:
    CERTIFICATION
    I,
    (We),
    having
    read
    the
    Order
    oF
    the
    Poll
    ution Control
    l3onrd
    in PCB 78—7,
    understand and acceot said Order, realizing that such
    acceptance
    renders
    all terms and
    cond~
    Llons there to
    binding and enforceable.
    SIGNED
    TITLE
    DATE
    -___________
    IT
    IS
    SO
    ORDERED.
    30—123

    —6--
    I,
    Christan
    L.
    Moffett,
    ClerJ:
    of
    the
    Illinois
    Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were
    adopted on the ~
    day of
    _________________,
    1978 by a vote
    Q~stab.o~~rk
    Illinois Po1lutio
    ontrol Board
    30—124

    Back to top