ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 18,
1975
VILLAGE
OF
WOODLAWN,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 75—266
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr.
Dumelie):
The Village of Woodlawn
(Petitioner)
filed
a variance
petition on July 7,
1975.
The Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(Agency)
filed a Recoxnntendation to grant the variance
on August
8,
1975.
No hearing was held.
Petitioner is a municipal corporation with a population
of 310 and presently has no sewage collection or municipal
treatment facilities. Village treatment consists primarily
of septic tanks and tile fields.
In addition, the Woodlawn
public schools discharge after Imhoff treatment into a
tributary of Rayse
Creel: which joins the Big Muddy River
above Rend Lake.
Petitioner’s proposed treatment program will consist of
a sewer system and ~ package contact stabilization plant
with tertiary treatment.
The effluent discharge from Petitioner’s
proposed plant will he tributary to the Big Muddy River.
The Big Muddy,
in turn, flows into Rend Lake.
Rule 203(c)
of Chapter
3 limits phosphorus concentration to
0.05 mg/i
in any reservoir or luke,
or in any stream at the point
where it enters into a reservoir or lake.
The phosphorus
concentration in the Bi~~
Muddy River entering Rend Lake
currently exceeds 0.05 mg/i.
Thus Petitioner’s effluent as
tributary
to the Big Muddy River may not violate Rule 203(c).
In addition,
since the Big Muddy River has a 7-day,
10 year
average low flow of zero above Rend Lake, Petitioner’s
effluent must meet water quality standards under Rule 402.
Therefore, Petitione~is prohibited from discharging an
effluent in excess of 0.05 mg/i phosphorus.
Rule 404(f) of the Water Regulations provides that for
discharges
to streams with less than 1:1 dilution,
the
effluent shall not exceed
4 rng/l of BOD and
5 mg/i suspended
solids.
Petitioner seeks
a Variance from Rule 404(f)
as
well as Rule 203(c)
and 402.
A Rule 404(f) (ii)
“Pfeffer
Exemption” procedure was submitted by Petitioner to the
18
—
574
—2—
Agency on June 24, i9~5,indicating that dissolved oxygen in
the receiving stream does not drop below 6.0 mg/i and ammonia
nitrogen does not exceed 1.5 mg/i.
The Exemption,
if granted,
would allow a BOD ‘evel of
10 mg/i and a suspended
solid
level of
12 mg/i.
Petitioner states in its Variance application
that the estimated effluent from its proposed treatment
facility would be no greater than
10 mg/i BOD and 12 mg/i
suspended solids.
Petitioner has been given
a priority number of 371 for
its sewage treatment p’ant
(STP)
and 966 for its sewage
collection system undei
the federal grant program.
Petitioner
also qualifies for the State of Illinois Accelerated Grant
Program.
Petitioner s~.atesthat its completed treatment
facility effluent ‘will have an average design flow of 0.035
MGD,
a BOD level of
10 mg/i and a Suspended Solids level of
12 mg/i.
Petitioner’s situation in regards to the phosphorus
standard
is similar to other recent variance cases coming
before the Board
froir
the Rend Lake area.
In City of Mt. Vernon
v. Environmental Protection Agency,
(PCE 74-489),
the Board
granted a variance from Rules 203(c), 404(f)(ii)(a),
(d)
and
(e)
of Chapter
3 as they pertain to phosphorus.
The variance
was conditioned upon construction of advanced phosphorus
removal techniques when such techniques became practicable.
In both Village of Argenta v. Environmental Protection
Agency,
(PCB 75-l82~,and Village of Cerro Gordo v. Environmental
Protection Agency,
~PCB 75-183), the Board conditioned
~iariancesupon the design and construction of treatment
plants to allow for possible future installation of phosphorus
removal facilities.
The Board’s reasoning in the instant
case is consistent with its approach in the aforementioned
cases.
Rend Lake
is phosphorus-limited and phosphorus removal
in the future may be reguired.
Until more research is performed,
we had best prepare for this r~quirement.
Petitioner has alleged in its petition that immediate
compliance with the Rule 203(c) phosphorus limit of 0.05
mg/i is technically infeasible and economically impracticable.
The Agency Recommendation notes that technology is available
to reach
a treatment level of
1 mg/i.
The necessary equipment
would be eligible for grant funding. Petitioner has neglected
to allege the cost of phosphorus removal equipment.
However,
the Agency states in its Recommendation that,
data presented
in the Cerro Gordo and Argenta cases indicates that operation
and maintenance costs would increase the average monthly
user charge by over 50.
18
—
575
—3—
Petitioner has presented data in the cost of two alternative
disposal methods,
that of land application and diversion eight
miles
to another water
shed.
The Agency indicates in its
Recommendation that given the local soil quality and the
small size of the ViLLage these methods would be not feasible or
prohibitively expeflsive.
The Agency further states, that
given the Petitiont~rspopulation of 310,
and the relative
quantities of phosphorus measured in the Big Muddy River
upstream of its entry into Rend Lake,
the Petitioner’s
phosphorus effluent has a minimal impact on the lake.
The Board finds that based on Petitioner’s financial
capacity,
its proposed treatment facilities,
the economics
of alternative disposa)L methods, and the minimal impact of
Petitioner’s discharge upon Rend Lake,
the Petitioner would
suffer an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship if required to
vachieve compliance with Rule 203(c), 402 and 404(f)
at this
time.
A variance
frc~’nRule 404(f) may not actually be needed
here as R74—l7
(July 17,
1975), amending Rule 409 of the
Water Regulations extends the Rule 404 compliance date for
municipalities and sanitary d1istricts eligible for construction
grants under the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments
of 1972,
from December
31, 1974 to July
1,
1977.
However,
under the Pfeffer Exemption proáedure,
all water quality
standards deadlines which have not been extended, must be
complied with before the 404(f) (ii) exemption may be granted.
To meet this difficulty and clarify Petitioner’s position,
the Variance from Rule 404(f)
is granted.
The Petitioner in a letter received by the Board on
August
13,
1975 has requested a “permanent” variance.
No such
authority exists for the Board to do so and the proper method
would be
in the forthcoming regulatory proceeding which the
Agency indicates it w2ll be initiating.
Because Petitioner
will be required to obtain an NPDES permit,
t.he Board may
grant
a variance for up ‘~oa five year period.
The Board
has determined that Petitioner should be granted a variance
until July
1,
1977.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of
law.
18
—
576
—4—
ORDER
The Pollution Control Board hereby grants the Village
of Woodlawn a variance from July
1,
1975 toJuly
1,
1977 from
Rules 203(c),
402, and 404(f)
subject to the following conditions:
a.
The sewage treatment plant shall be designed and con-
structed to allow for the possible future installation of
appropriate phosphorus removal facilities, and
b.
Within
35 days after the date of the Board Order herein,
the Village of Woodlawn shall execute and submit to the Manager,
Variance Section,
Division of Water Pollution Control,
Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield,
Illinois 62706,
a Certification of Acceptance and agreement to
be bound to all terms and conditions of the variance.
The form
of said certification shall be as follows:
CERTIFICATION
I
(We), ___________________________having read and fully
understanding the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
in PCB 75-266 hereby accept said Order and agree to be bound by
all terms and conditionr~thereof.
Signed _______________________________
Title _______________________________
Date ___________________________________
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Mcffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above 0 inion and Order
were adopted on the
______
day o
1975 by
a
vote of
,3_~
Christan L. Moff
lerk
Illinois Pollution
ntrol Board
18
—
577