ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February 3, 1972

LAKE 

COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

)

PUBLIC WORKS

v.

)

PCB 71—337

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. Lawrence S. Bloom, appeared for the Petitioner;

Mr. Lee A. Camtbell, Assistant Attorney General, appeared for the

Respondent

OPINION OF THE BOARD (by. Mr. Dumelle)

On October 28, 1971 the Lake County Department of Public Works

(hereafter Department) filed a petition for variance seek4ng a waiver

of one of the special conditions established in a permit3-~ issued by

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Department for the

Department’s Vernon Hills Sewage Treatment Plant (Vernon Hills

STP). The Department sought to be relieved from complying with the

permit requirement for clarification and chemical treatment following

tertiary lagoons.

We grant a variance for one year, until January 23, 1973 subject

to several conditions.

A new sewage treatment plant is to be in operation for the area

now served by the Vernon Hills STP by August of 1973 (R. 29). The

present plant will then be abandoned. After August of 1973 the

Vernon Hills STP will be serving as a lift station to transport wastes

to the New Century Town Sewage Treatment Plant. The permit applied

for in this case was to enlarge the existing plant to accommodate

the additional population load up untill the time that the new plant

1   Permit Number l971-~B—4O3

“Special Condition. This permit is issued subject to the condition

that the owner/operator shall submit plans and specifications within

four weeks of the date of this permit to provide for final clari-

fication with chemical coagulation following the two cell lagoon,

in accordance with the latest policies and technical requirements

of this agency.”

3

—

601

is in operation. The Department, on ~1ay 11, 1971 submitted plans

for the use of a temporary portable plant until the new plant is on

line. The expansion was to be accomplished with the use of four

modular units handling 50,000 gallons each (R. 53). A permit was

granted bn July 13, 1971 which approved the submitted plans and

added the special condition for clarification by chemical trtatment

which is the subject of this variance request.

The equipment called for by the special condition was necessitated

by a new technical policy statement issued by the EPA in July of

1971. The added requirement came into existence some two or three

months after the Department had applied for a permit to operate the

temporary facilities. The special condition requirement related to

removal of algae. The algae growth represents a problem for about

three months of the year at the end of the summer season (R. 45).

For the remaining months there would be no need for the chemical

clarifier

(R. 45-46). There was testimony that had the Department

known of the new requirement before they start~ed on their expansion

plans by excavating the lagoons they would have likely opted to

install mixed media filters instead of the lagoon system. The

special condition was a requirement for the Department to change

courses in midstream.

Compliance with the special condition

will add a substantial

expense to the temporary plant.. In making

our decision the fact

that the facilities required to meet the special condition of the

permit were of a temporary nature weighed heavily.

In little more

than one year the need for the additionally required treatment will

surcease. Meanwhile an increment of one—third of the cost of the

temporary

plant will have been added to the estimated cost of the

temporary facilities.

Mr. Robert J. Degan, Directof of Public Works

for the Department testified that the cost of engineering and con-

struction of the temporary plant, exclusive of the special condition

requirements, was $206,064 (R. 26). The cost of the chemical clarifier

required by the special condition would be approximately $65,000.

On the record facts we find that the special condition require-

ments impose an unreasonable hardship on the petitioner. Further

since the algae growth will potentially be a problem for cnly about

three months of the.year we find that there will not be such a

significant detriment to the environment to not allow the operation

of the temporary plant without the special condition requirements.

The evidence showed that the effluent from the temporary plant as

regards BOD and suspended solids will very likely be of such a quality

as to exceed the quality of the receiving stream. The plant effluent

was characterized as meeting the applicable standards of 4 mg/i BOD

and S mg/l suspended solids (R. 5). The receiving stream~ Seavey

Ditch, was sampled and showed concentrations of 22 and 19 mg/i ROD

and 5 and 12 mg/l suspended solids (R. 14). ‘The 22 mg/i BOD and

5 mg/l suspended solids were samples taken upstream from the present

plant and would not be a reflection of the character of the present

plant effluent. With the use of the temporary plant ~which is expected

to be operational in February 1972 (R. 46) the quality of the

eceiving ditch should improve.

3

—

602

We have a precedent for granting a variance in a case such as

this where it is requested that a governmental body operate a

sewage treatment facility at variance with the regulatory require-

ments on a temporary basis while permanent improvements are being

made. In The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago v.

EPA, PCB 71-166, (September 16, 1971) we allowed the operation of

?he

District’s Orland Park plant until permanent adequate facilities,

a new interceptor sewer, could be constructed which would lead to

the abandonment of the plant for which a variance was asked. There,

as here, it was demonstrated that no permanent ecological harm would

occur in the receiving stream.

We therefore grant the variance subject to the conditions that

the Department complete construction of its tertiary lagoons by

February 1972; that the Department abandon the Vernon Hills

STP as a treatment facility after the ~ Century Town plant is

in operation and; that the Department submit quarterly reports to

the Board and the EPA on the~rogressto date.

One final note, there was some considerable record discussion as

to the commencement of the ninety day period by which this Board must

make a decision on the instant variance request. Our rule states

that “A variance proceeding shall be commenced by filing a petition

for variance with the Ag~ncyand by filing ten copies of the petition

with the Clerk of the Board.” (Pollution Control Board Regulations

40. (a), emphasis added). The instant request was filed with the

Board on Oôtober 28, 1971. The clock started running on that date.

This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and,:con-

clusions of law.

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

Board, hereby certify the Board adopted the above Opinion on the~~

day of February, 1972 by a vote of ~

Christan L. Moffett; erk

tllinois Pollution Control Board

3— 603