ILLlt3l~P

J~JTr1;CONTROL 3CARO

illLch

2,

1978

~Y

GPC~7x~S?N~

‘~

~NV1~ONMEN~ Al PF~”~T~i

tON AND ORDER O~Tr~EBOARD

(~j

Mr. We.~

~,

This

matter

comes

befre

the

Board on ~ ‘a~:

~n-~e

‘~

~tton

tiled

on

November 16,

1977

by th~Mulberry

~

~

~

oi

Bond County,

Illinois, request~ngrelief ~

4~i

cne 404(f)

of the Boa~d~sNate:

‘~o11ution~

t1i~

~

wa~e

~eat~cn;

p~nt.

The

~

Jece~n~er.12,

19

?~.

Ca

Januazy

20,

19/b,

tha

~ency

~ie~

~mmeridnt1on

i.~

f~~r

of ~:nn~ng

a 5-year

v~iance

m Rul~

~)

and

R~1e

~2,

lhc

r1u1~ti~

~

~

District

I ~ ~‘r

~c

ii~r

t of

s

)rL

t~y~

~.

em

i~ pr?

~n~tIy

oven

oaded

ann

~n

o

~

~j

~r

to

~c~(lp~Ly

w~chtar

~)nospI1o~

us

water

~

~:

drd

r~

/

:ihi

~

~ro~

the

H)hosphorus

ac ~ ~h

r

(

~

~eed

i

ti~

r~sErvoir

or

J:c,

o~ in

any

strean

i

he~e

‘jI

~

~ny resenvo~rci

Moreover,

acv

f~flarc

to

moct

the

pho~pho:c~

w~tc~

~uai~fy

~da:

d

would

co

~cc~tantiy

violate

the

efftL~enc

stan~

~d of

~l

which

specifies

~tat

“no

effluent shall,

aicre

or

in

cmo~ie

t

~ ot1~e~sources

c~rnc

v~nlntion

of

ant’

i

~cab~c

wat~~cvi

‘~crordia~ij,

tt~

M~ibeary

Grove

Sanit

~

J~

~ri

3ee~

n

~ lance from Rut

l~l(e)

~~artai:itng

to ph~

plic’

cs

U

~s

~n

~ t~

~.

~

40~,

2~ji,

~

~

~rict

is

~eckrnq

a

varUnce

~“

~,

~n~ch

SL~a~

Jtat

all

effluents

coi~L~~

~CO~

~

fl~

CX~CCJ

L~t

;~i

~f

~

uq/I

of

BODE

T

~

if the dituti a: :at~co~t~ieeff1uet~

~n

o~c

~

~

f~n:t,

Rule

4O~

ci

~

ucat

co~tainin~

~

-

S

ci

a

~)

and

susi-

1d~~ai

so1i~

~~hich

cxc

tn~

~

~petifiea

ii~

~i1~

i

upgrades

its.

_c~i~it:c

29

—

305

---

With respect to the

requested variance from Rule 404(f)

(which

sets limits re deoxygenating

wastes

in effluents),

the Agency

(on

page

1 of its Recommendation)

states

that it “believes

a variance

from this Rule is not necessary

and

it should

be

dismissed,”

As the Pollution Control Board

has indicated

in the opinion

of Country Aire Mobile

Home Park

V.

EPA,

PCB 77~I26:

“Granting of a

variance from Rule 203(c)

and

Rule 402

as

to

phosphorus would permit Agency

approval of the lagoon

exemption.

A

variance

from Rule 404(f)

is not necessary,

since a

variance from 203(c)

would negate the requirement

of not having

a

violation

,

alone or

in combination

with other

sources

,

of the phosphorus water quality

standard, when

applying for the lagoon exemption,H

On page

3 of its

variance petition,

the District described

its proposed equipment for control of

discharge as follows:

“The proposed

treatment facility consists of

a

three cell lagoon

system,

the first

cell being

aerated, the second

cell being

a conventional

faculative

lagoon and the third duplicate cells with

submerged

sand filters for algae control,

These

lagoons are followed

by chlorination.

The facilities

are designed

for

a

population of

1,040

people with an

average design flow of

96,000

qpd,

The proposed system

is

located

southeast of the

District

and

will

be tribu~

tary to an unnamed

ditch which discharges

into

Hurri-

cane Creek

approximately 10 miles upstream of Carlyle

reservoir,”

However, the funding

for

this

project

has

been

a

major obstacle:

“In August of 1975,

the Mulberry Grove Sanitary

District received a

Step

I

State

Standard Priority

Grant, under

the Anti~Po1lutionBond

Act

of l970~.

The District realized

that the costs

associated

with

the proposed improvements

would be

a significant

economic burden,

however,

it

was dccided

to

proceed

contingent upon

the recespt of

Ste

2

and

a Step

3

Grant participation

(75

fundinq)

It now

appears,

however,

that

if phosphorus removal

is required at

this time,

even with the best practical

technology

available,

the

results would be an arbitrary and

unreasonable

hardship upon the District, and

it

I’

EtfUf

if

the

~ould

afford

the

greatly

increased

operation

and

maintenance costs

associated

with phosphorus

removal,~

(Pet,,

p,l).

29

—

306

---

—3—

The District goes on to say

~

pages

4 and 5 of its petition)

that:

“It is almost certain that

it

any phosphorus removal

requirement were imposed upon the Village, at this

time,

the

Eotal

proposed

improvemei3t

program

would

be

~E~i~jdoj~ ~~c~F~iTc7easons,

The additional

amoü~t

of phosphorus that will be discharged

into the

receiv-

ing

stream from these proposed

improvements, discounting

that

which

is

presently

entering

the

stream

through

the

present

inadequate

treatment

facility

is

estimated

at

5,5

lbs.

per

day.

There

is

no

flow

data available on

-the

receiving

stream

other

than

it

is

on

intermittent

stream.

The

fact

that

this

stream

has

no

flow

much

of

the

year

and

the

ten

mile

distance

from

the

Mulberry

Grove

Wastewater

Treatment

facility

to

the

upper

end

of

the

Carlyle

Reservoir

makes

it quite evident

that

most

of

the

flow

from

this

facility

seldom

reaches

the

reservoir

due

to

infiltration

into

the

stream

bed

and

ultimate

use

of

the

nutrients

by

vegetation.

Removal

of phosphorus from the effluent of the treatment facil-

ity would have an insignificant effect on the water

quality of the Hurricane Creek or Lake Carlyle.”

(Emphasis supplied,)

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency states in their

eecommendation

(at page

4)

that phosphorus

from

the Mulberry Grove

Sanitary District’s sewage treatment plant

contributes about 0.3

to

the total phosphorus

load of CarlyJ~Reservoir,

Alternatives

to phosphorus removal

sucti as

~j

effluent

disposal

by spray irrigation or infiltration and

(2) effluent transport to an

adjacent drainage basin

(Beaver Creek) not tr.ibutarv

~

Carlyle Lake

were investigated by the District,

For example, a study by corniultingengineers indicated that

the

possibility

of

eliminating any discharge from the

treatment works by

land irrigation methods would involve a capital

cost of $512,535 00

Moreover, for compliance with the 0

05 mg/I phosphorus limit, the

present estimated average monthly usercharge

for the

proposed

improve-

ment

(assuming maximum State grant~r~e~ived)would

be about $9.60

(Pet., p.4).

In response to these projected alternatives, the Agency Recommen-

dation states that:

“The Agency believes that requiring phospiiorus

removal

to the 0.05 mg/i level

is

technically feasible but

economically unreasonable, and to require Petitioner

to

meet this criteria at this time

would impose an

arbitrary

and unreasonable hardship,

(See:

Caseyvilie

Townshi

e

V.

,

-

4; City of Arcola

V.

PCB,

76-280;

and

Urbana and Champaign Sanitary District’~~PCB

76-295

)“

29

—

30?

---

—4-.

In similar

cases,

the Board has cons~stentlyrecognized that it

is “economically impractical for the petitioners to comply with the

current phosphorus

limitation of Chapter 3.” •Village of Raymond v.

EPA, PCB 77—226;

City

of ~

PCB 7~-234

24 PCB441;

South~n

flTin6Th University at Edwardsville, PCB 77-111,

25 PCB 775;

Valley

Water Company,

Inc., PCB 77—146,

25 PCB 289,

In

fact,

the Agency has petitioned

the Pollution

Control Board

(in regulatory proposal R76-l)

for the

appropriate

amendments

to the

Water Pollution Regulations which would modify

the existing phosphorus

effluent and water quality standards,

Thus,

the Board finds that the Petitioner would suffer an arbitrary

and unreasonable hardship if required

to meet the

exist~ing0.05 mg/i

phosphorus standard.

Petitioner will be

granted

a variance from Rule 203(c)

and Rule 402 of the Board’s Water

Pollution

Regulations for a period of

5 years, or until the Board adopts

a regulation change under R76-l,

whichever occurs first,

subject to the

conditions of the Order.

Parenthetically,

on page

2

of the

Agency’s Recommendation,

it

was

suggested that a condition

(i.e.,

“condition

‘a’

“)

be attached to the

variance

“that Petitioner provide space in

the

engineering design of

its proposed waste treatment works

for

storage of chemical mixing and

dosing equipment capable of meeting

phosphorus

standards which may be

established by the Board.”

Since the phosphorus standards have

not yet

been finally established

and since the size and space requirements for

equipment capable of meeting

some future indeterminate standards are

not.

currently ascertainable, we

feel that condition

“a” should be considered

by

the District’s engineers

and their best judgment in providing

for this

space shall be exercised.

This Opinion constitutes the

Board’s findings

ORDER

1.

The Mulberry Grove Sanitary District

is

granted

a

variance

for

the

operation of its sewage treatment plant

from

Rules

203(c)

and Rule 402

of Chapter

3: Water Pollution,

of the Board~sI~ules~

and Regulations

pertaining to phosphorus until March

31, i993,~subj~dctto the following

condjtions:

(a)

That Petitioner agrees

to

comply

with

the

terms of

R 76-i,

or other

modified

phosphorus

standards,

when and

if

adopted by the Board,

(b)

That Petitioner’s

NPDES Permit

be modified

in

the

manner requested in paragraph

3 of

Recommendation,

2.

Within forty—five

(45)

days after

the date

of this Order, the

Petitioner shall submit to the Manager,

Variance

SecLion, Division of

Water Pollution Control, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

2200 Churchill Road, Springfield,

Illinois

62706,

an executed

29

—

308

---

—5—

Certification of Acceptance and Agreement to be bound to all terms and

conditions of the variance.

The forty-five

day period herein shall

not run during judicial review of this variance pursuant to Section 41

of the Environmental Protection Act.

The form of this certification

CERTIFICATION

I,

(We),

having received

and read the Order of the Pollution Control Board in PCB 77-297,

understand and accept said Order, realizing that such acceptance

renders all terms and conditions thereto binding and enforceable.

TITLE

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify

he above Opinion and Order were

dopted on the

~

day of

___________________,

1978 by a vote of

________

Illinois Pollution

trol Board

29

—