ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April

28, 1977

VILLAGE OF INA,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 77-38

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Young):

This matter comes before the Board on the petition filed

on February

2,

1977,

by the Village of Ina seeking variance

from Rules 203(d),

402, 404(c) (iii) (D) and 404(f) (1)

of Chapter

3:

Water Pollution as regards dissolved oxygen.

The Agency

Recommendation favorable

to the grant of the variance was

filed on March 14,

1977.

The Village of ma does not presently have either a

sewage collection system or treatment facilities.

With the

assistance of a State grant,

the Village proposes

to construct

both

a collection system and treatment plant.

The proposed

treatment plant will discharge to an unnamed tributary of Gun

Creek, approximately 2.16 miles upstream of Rend Lake.

Although

the Agency did offer the Village Step II and III

funding

for

the project,

that offer was contingent upon the Village obtaining

a lagoon exemption.

On November

3,

1976,

the Agency denied the

Village’s request for a Rule 404(f) (i)

(lagoon)

exemption main-

taining that a potential for dissolved oxygen depression exists

in Rend Lake

as a result of the proposed discharge.

Agency

analysis

showed that under an unusual set of hydrologic circum-

stances

an area of approximately 0.9 acres of the 18,900 acre

lake might be severely affected by the proposed discharge

(Rec.

4).

The Viliaqe does not dispute this contention by the Aqency

but based upon its own analysis states that the potential for

such violatiqn

is unlikely and only remote under extreme circum-

stances.

That analysis showed that the oxygen demand of the

proposed discharge would be met by the surface reaeration capa-

bility present in only 5.3 acres of the lake.

The Village also

points out that the oxygen production from the photosynthetic

reactions which typically occur in biologically active waters was

conservatively neglected in this analysis

(Pet.

6).

As this

analysis shows, and as stated by the Agency,

the potential adverse

environmental impact resulting from the proposed discharge

is very

small

(Rec.

4).

25

—

407

---

—2—

In view of this finding the Board believes that the Village

is entitled to a Rule 404(f)(i) exemption.

The more troublesome

question is, however, whether it is necessary for this Board to

grant this variance as a precondition therefor.

The Board

believes it is not, and that the Agency can grant this exemption

in the absence of a variance grant.

The Board believes that it

is entirely proper in cases such as this involving short run,

low flow streams which discharge into a large lake where the

area of the mixing zone is minimal as compared to the total area

of the lake for the Agency, when making its determination con-

cerning compliance with the dissolved oxygen water quality

standard pursuant to an exemption request, to permit the discharge

a mixing zone as generally described in Rule 201 provided that no

violation of the standard exists in the stream as a result of the

discharge.

In such a case, it is only when a dissolved oxygen

violation occurs outside the mixing zone that the Rule 404(f)(i)

or Rule 404(f) (ii) request should be denied.

In view of the foregoing, and since the Board finds the

Village is entitled to

a Rule 404(f)(i) exemption even in the

absence of a variance, this request will be dismissed.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

The variance petition filed by the Village of ma seeking

relief from Rules

203(d), 402, 404(f) (i) and 404(c) (iii) (D) of

Chapter

3 is hereby dismissed.

IT IS SO

ORDERED.

I, Christan L.

Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board,

hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were

adopted on the ,.151t

day of

(~jj~~j

,

1977 by a vote

of~3~—O_.

Christan L. MoffettI~~1erk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

25

—

408