ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 5, 1974

CITY OF LEROY

PETITIONER

)

v.

)

PCB 74—231

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY )

RESPONDENT

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Marder)

This action involves a Petition for Variance, filed by the City

of LeRoy on June 17, 1974. On September 13, 1974, the city filed

an Amended Petition for Variance, requesting relief from Rule 408

(a), Chapter 3, Water Pollution Control Regulations, as it relates

to iron and total suspended solids, and Rule 408 (b) as it applies

to total dissolved solids, in order to get a construction permit

for a new public water supply treatment plant.

The Agency filed its Recommendation on November 22, 1974. The

Recommendation suggests that the Petition may be moot and should be

dismissed or in the alternative, should the Board find the matter

not moot, that it be granted.

No hearing was held.

The Petitioner is in need of a new water treatment plant. It is

alleged that the existing plant was built in 1934. For the past sev-

eral years, the equipment has been deteriorating rapidly, and it is

in constant need of repair if it is to provide an adequate quality

of water.

Since 1972 the city has been attempting to receive federal grant

money under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (PL

92-500) to construct a wastewater treatment plant. To date, the city

has not achieved a high enough priority number to insure prompt action

on their request.

The present water treatment plant treats about 240,000 gallons a

day. The plant reduces a raw influent of 5.8 ppm iron to a finished

product of .2 ppm. This amounts to 11.4 lb. of iron per day. The

new plant will have four new filters having an area of 41 square feet

apiece. To clear the filters the backwash rate will be 500 gallons

per minute for 5000 gallons of water per filter per day. Therefore,

29,000 gallons of water will be needed for complete backwash per day.

The city proposes to provide a holding basin for the backwash water,

so that it will discharge to the city sewer at a rate of 50 gallons

per minute.

14— 609

---

—2—

Three zeolite softeners will be regenerated with the use of brine.

There will be 4.5 regenerations per day, with 348 lbs. of salt used

per regeneration. 29,000 gallons of water per day will be used in re-

generation. The total dissolved solids in the rinse water will be

6400 ppm. This water is also to go to the holding tank for discharge

at a rate of 50 gallons per minute.

The problem is that the city does not have a treatment plant for

its sewer system. Therefore, the contaminants discharged from the

plant receive no treatment other than dilution before being discharged

to a tributary of the North Fork of Salt Creek, which is tributary to

the Sangamon River.

The Agency to this point has not issued a permit to construct this

plant, the reason being that the discharge would cause a breach of

the effluent standards when it would be completed.

The city will not be able to meet the effluent criteria until a

sewage treatment plant is built, and it appears this will be a rath-

er long process. In the meantime, the city is having a difficult

time supplying its water to the public. It should be noted that the

new plant is a replacement plant and will not substantially change

the quality of the effluent.

Hardship alleged relates to the lack of a properly treated public

water supply. The Board finds that maintenance of a pure supply of

water to the public is of prime importance.

The Agency suggests that as a contributing discharger to a common

sewer system whose total discharge is subject to the control of a per-

mit issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System,

the plant in question does not need a variance. A draft permit has

been prepared by the Agency and forwarded to Region V, U.S. Environ-

mental Protection Agency, in Chicago. As a condition of that permit,

the city would be allowed to maintain its present discharge from the

sewer.

We cannot agree with the Agency that the issuance of an NPDES permit

will grant the relief sought. The Federal Environmental Protection

Agency has not yet accepted the state’s proposal for administration of

this system, and while we hope for early approval, we cannot be assured

of this. To rely on the actions of a third party (U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency) would put Petitioner in jeopardy of violations of

Board effluent standards through no fault of its own. Even with the

grant of a federal NPDES permit, Petitioner would have to comply with

Board effluent standards.

The Board finds that thi~case is similar In nature to P~B

74-15,

Village of Potomac v. Enviroi~tentalProtection Agency, and that adequate

hardship has been prbven to wa~ant a grant of variance. We fully

real-

ize that this variance may indeed be moot in the future; however, should

a variance extension be required one year from now, the Board will re—

14—610

---

—3—

quire much additional information regarding Petitioner’s compliance

plans.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of

law of the Board.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that Petitioner is

granted variance from Rule 408 (a) as it applies to iron and total sus-

pended solids, and 408 (b) as it applies to total dissolved solids un-

til December 5, 1975, subject to the following:

Petitioner shall discharge the combined effluents from its

proposed holding tank on a 24-hr. basis to reduce the average

concentration of iron and chlorides discharged as much as

possible.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, certify t4lat the above Opinion and Order was adopted by the

Board on the ~ ~ day of ~

1974, by a vote of ~

tob