ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May

16, 1974

VILLAGE OF POTOMAC

)

PETITIONER

v.

)

PCB 74~l5

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

)

RESPONDENT

)

MR.

FRED

L. HUBBARD, ATTORNEY, in behalf

of the VILLAGE OF POTOMAC

MR. STEPHEN H.

GUNNING,

ATTORNEY, in behalf of the ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr.

Marder)

This action involves a request for variance filed

January 10,

1974, by the Village of Potomac. Relief is sought from Rule 408

of Chapter

3

of the Board~sRules and Regulations, as it pertains

to dissolved solids and chlorides.

The Village of Potomac is located in Vermillion County and has

a present population of 900 people. The Village owns and operates

a water treatment plant. which produces potable water for its citizens.

This plant, in operation since 1953, can not produce water of the

quality and quantity required by the Village, as such expansion and

modernization have

become necessary. The original plant was funded

by non—callable revenue bonds

scheduled for full debt service in 1989.

Because of a clause in said bonds guaranteeing

that improvements will

be made to protect the investment,

notification by the Agency in 1971

of need for such improvements,

and the abovementioned lack of supply,

the Village has undertaken

to remedy the situation.

On June 9,

1972, the Village Board, after public notice, held a

referendum which authorized $90,000

of general obligation bonds. Be—

cause of unexpectedly high bids for

the improvements (low bid $122,255),

the scope of the project was changed to fit

the available funds.

Present and Proposed

Plants: The present water plant includes wat—

er softening (ion exchangers) and iron filtration equipment.

Petition--

er proposes to replace

its iron filter with two additional units, re--

place

its zeolite softener, and add a

common wastewater backwash fil--

ter and holding tank. The proposed

expansion will provide adequate

capacity until the year 1982,

12--285

---

—2—

Presently discharges from the plant go directly into storm sewers

and thence to Blue Grass Creek, which is approximately 1000 feet up--

stream of the mouth of the North Fork of the Vermillion River. These

discharges contain a peak discharge of 80,000 mg/i dissolved solids

(Rule 408 (b) requires no greater than 3500 mg/i). The proposed hold-

ing tank and metered pumping (5 gpm) would, in the Agency1s opinion,

reduce this level to between 5000 mg/i and 7640 mg/i. Although this

value is above the required 3500 mg/i, the Agency feels that this is

the best economically and technically feasible solution. The problem

with complete compliance centers around the fact that the Village of

Potomac has no waste treatment facilities. All sanitary wastes are

handled by privately owned septic tanks. Because of this, the Village

has no practical method of disposing

of

said brine.

This case can be distinguished from Gallatin—White Water District,

Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency (PCB 72-448 9-615) in two re-

spects:

1)

Gallatin-White involved a totally new plant, while

this action involves an addition to an existing

plant,

2) Testimony

in Gallatin-White

indicated that dis-

charges from their

plant

were a potential source

of contamination of ground

waters. In this instance

the

wastes will be discharged

directly to a storm

sewer,

thereby decreasing this

possibility.

In Gallatin-White the variance

was denied, because

in

the Agency~s

opinion, lime softening would be a better alternate. In

the

instant

case “conversion~’ to lime softening would require a

fresh start and

effectively negate the use of existing gacilities.

Petitioner alleges

that there is no margin of funds for alternate

technology and that

in-

deed they are shifting federal revenue sharing funds to this project

to meet required costs,

Hardship: Petitioner alleges that an unreasonable hardship would

be ~~dif

said variance were denied, Petitioner would find itself

in

violation of two

bond

ordinances as well as an

Illinois Pollution

Control Board regulation. Further, it is

alleged that an increase

in

water

revenue rates

would increase

the probability of customers seek-

ing alternate water supplies. This would create a

financial spiral

which could only serve to deflate any gains which Petitioner has pro-

posed. Furthermore, the Board takes note that individual wells are

not state—controlled, and use of such wells has a higher potential for

hazardous operation than does a regulated water system.

Environmental Lwpact: Petitioner alleges and the Agency agrees that

the discharge from the proposed plant should have a negligible effect

on the water quality

of

the receiving stream.

The contention of minimal environmental impact is based on a nun—

12—286

---

—3—

ber of facts on the record. Although there is nothing on the record

to indicate the low flow of Blue Grass Creek, the North Fork of the

Vermillion River is a substantial stream affording good dilution. Pet-

ition contends that there have been no reports of fish kills in the

stream. The Agency contends that even in an undiluted state, Petit-

ioner’s discharge will have minimal environmental effects on the re-

The following is a recent analysis of Petitioner’s

discharges:

Total Iron

135 mg/i

Total Manganese

1.83 mg/l

Dissolved Iron

0.06 mg/i

Dissolved Manganese 0.10 mg/i

The Agency contends that in addition to substantial reductions in

the peak load of total dissolved solids, there will be a significant

reduction in total suspended solids (e.g., iron and manganese). It

is the Board’s opinion that the minor environmental impact is greatly

outweighed by the potential hardship which could be generated should

this variance be denied.

The Board is cognizant of the fact that this variance provides no

compliance plan to reduce levels below those required in Rule 408 (b).

In this specific case the Board relieves Petitioner of the obligation

duration of a variance, review its decision on a year—by—

the concentration of discharges, and is thereby an excell-

central waste treatment facilities which would solve this

In closing the Board takes note of four points raised in this issue:

1) The Agency reports that it is in the planning stage of a

proposal which would affect discharges (T.D.S.). This re-

inforces the Board’s opinion that a waiver of a

firm

com-

2) Petitioner relates that present plans call for deletion of

gas chlorination of final waters. The Board emphatically

urges Petitioner to take note of pending regulatory pro-

cedure, R-73-l3, dealing with public drinking water supplies

12

—

287

---

—4—

This proposal calls for mandatory chlorination of water sup-

plies, and if passed will surely affect Petitioner~s decis-

ion, It would be in

Petitioner~s best interest’to become

familiar with R73-l3 and assure itself that all provisions

therein are taken into account.

3) Petitioner seeks relief from chlorides as well as total

dissolved solids. There is no such requirement in Rule

408, and no showing of need for such variance under Rule

203 or 204 (Chap. 3). This request will be dismissed as

4) The Agency, in its recommendation, sought a $20,000 bond

to guarantee compliance with this order. In light of the

fact that funds have already been raised and committed,

and the tight financial position of Petitioner, the

Board will not require such a bond.

In light of the above, the Board will grant Petitioner a variance

1. Variance is granted from Rule 408 (b), Chapter III, as

it pertains to total dissolved solids for one year from

schedule within one month from the date of

b) Petitioner shall file bimonthly reports de-

tailing progress of its project. The first such

report shall be due one month from the date of

2. Variance as it applies to chlorides is dismissed as moot.

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

ard, certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted by the

ard on the jj,~.4Aday of~

,

1974, by a vote of

,~

to ~

pJ~y~JY~J~,