ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March

2,

1972

VILLAGE OF LENA

V.

)

PCB 71—384

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OPINION OF THE BOARD

(by Richard

J.

Kissel):

The Village of Lena filed a petition

for variance with

the

Board asking for an extension of time within which to design and

complete

its waste treatment

facilities.

The effluent from the Village’s waste treatment plant is

dischargthI into

a tributary of Yellow Creek, which is itself

tributary

to the Pecatonica River.

While

the effluent flow rate

from the Village’s waste treatment plant

is only 130,000 gallons

per day,

the flow of the tributary

to which it discharges

is

so

small that the dilution ratio is less than

1 to

1.

Since the

tributary

is

an intrastate stream,

SWB-l4 applies,

and it requires

that in situations where

the dilution is less than

1 to

1,

the

effluent must average

4 mg/l

.BOD and

5 mg/l suspended solids by

July,

1972.

Presently,

the Village’s waste treatment plant, which

is

a trickling filter plant, can accomodate

all of the influent

(except the digester which is 100

overloaded)

and

it produces

an effluent of

35 mg/l

BOD and

25 ing/l suspended solids.

Recognizing that it had to build new facilities providing

for tertiary treatment by July

31,

1972,

the following sequence of

events took place:

A.

The Village of Lena entered into an engineering agree-

ment with their consulting engineer April

27,

1970,

to prepare

plans

and specifications for tertiary treatment facilities to

bring their effluent in line with State criteria.

B.

Additional ground was necessary

to provide tertiary

treatment facilities, but final purchase

and location could not

be made until the State Highway Department completed their State

Route

20 location hearings,

as

the proposed route was immediately

south

of the existing treatment facility.

On January

25,

1971,

a letter was sent to the Environmental Protection Agency informing

them that our plans were held up pending final location of the

proposed Route

20.

3

—

709

---

C.

In February of 1971 the State Highway Department

finalized their State

Route

20

location, and the Village of Lena

then purchased

six acres of additional land

for tertiary treat-

ment facilities.

D.

On April

27,

1971, preliminary plans were forwarded

to the Environmental Protection Agency office for review and

comments before final plans and specifications were completed.

These preliminary plans consisted of tertiary

lagoons.

E.

On July,

1971

WPC

Technical Policy 20—24

(Waste Treat-

ment Plant Design Criteria) was revised to require mechanical

settling and chemical precipitation of all lagoon effluents.

F.

On September

10,

1971,

a letter was sent to

the Environ-

mental Protection Agency office asking about the status of our pre-

liminary plan

review.

C.

On Septembe~r23,

1971,

the Village received a letter from

the Environmental Protection Agency office stating the review of cur

preliminary plans had been completed,

and

the Village of Lena

would have

to comply with the revised criteria and furnish mechanical

settling and chemical precipitation for the lagoon effluent.

H.

In the interim between plan submission on April

27,

1971,

and completed plan review on

Septenther 23,

1971, the Village

of Lena had been studying

the Johns-Manville moving bed filter

as

an alternate solution for the Village of Lena tertiary treatment

process.

The moving bed filter

is

a continuous filtration process

in which

the wastewater moves countercurrent to the filter medium.

The system is not shut down

for backwash since the spent sand is

removed and washed in

a separate unit operation and then returned

to the filter bed.

Village Board members on two separate occasions

visited

a moving bed filter installation at Manville, New Jersey.

I.

The revised criteria change and the technological ad-

vances in the moving bed filtration process have caused the Village

of Lena to abandon tertiary lagoons and approve the moving bed

filter process for tertiary treatment.

J.

The Village of Lena on December

1,

1971, received a

firm proposal for supplying the hardware

for

a moving bed filter

from Peabody Welles, which has

a license to sell from Johns-Manville.

They have also guaranteed to meet the EPA criteria of

4 mg/i

and

5~rng/1of

5

day BOD and suspended solids respectively.

The proposal

guarantees delivery of the moving bed filter hardware

such that the

Village of Lena waste treatment effluent will meet the Water Quality

Criteria Standards by December

1,

1972.

3— 710

---

It is obvious from the record that the Village has made

a

good

faith effort to meet the July

31, 1972 deadline,

It was

slowed both by the

lack of decision on

the part of the State

High-

way Department on the location of Route

20 and by the Agency’s

new technical release calling for algae removal among other things.

We

feel that the Village was justified in its actions, and lacking

any proof of harm to the stream, we will grant the variance.

U

An important reason why

the variance is granted is that the Village

is

only asking for a four—month extension,

As we said in the

Marion case,

“Without condoning past lapses,

we

think it appro—

~ii~e

to encourage those who have fallen behind to make every

effort

to make up for it.

We shall therefore look with some in-

dulgence upon local governments that file programs in the immediate

future that will result in compliance within a short time after

the ultimate deadline.”

EPA

V.

City of Marion, PCB 71-25, opinion

dated October 28, 1971.

The Agency in

its

recommendation agreed

that the variance should be granted,

and therefore the

new time

schedule of the Village will be as follows:

1.

Completion of plans and specifications and submission

to the Agency by March 15,

1972,

2.

Award of construction contracts by July

1,

1972.

3.

Completion of project by December 1,

1972.

One other issue must be dealt with.

In its petition, the

Village requests that the Board “order the Village of Lena,

Illinois,

to issue General Obligation Bonds to finance the required waste

treatment facilities” as provided for in Section

46 of the Act.

The Agency recommends that before the Board enter any such “order

to issue bonds”

it hold a public hearing on the necessity for the

bonds and require as

a preliminary condition that the citizens

defeat a referendum.

Unfortunately, neither the Village or the

Agency understood

thi,s

procedural position of the Board as set

forth in Section

46 of the Act.

Essentially, Section

46 of the

Act does

not give

the power to the Board tb’say “issue bqnds”,

but,

does give the Board the power to say “abate pollution”.

Once

having said this,

the municipality must take all steps ordered

by the Board and if necessary, issue non—referendum bonds,

In

11

The petition alleged that the stream is not used for

recreational purposes until Freeport, Illinois, which is eighteen

miles away.

3

*

711

---

other words, under Section

46

the Board does not tell the city

how

to raise money, but Section 46 does remove the

lack of money

E~a municipality as an excuse.

As we said in the Marion case:

we leave the question of how

to raise money

to the City, but the money must be raised!

See Ruth

v.

Aurora Sanitary District,

17

Ill.

2d

11,

158 N.E.

2d 601

(1959).”

Environmental Protection Agency v.

City of Marion, PCB 71-25, opinion dated October

28,

1971.

Thus,

the issue of whether the Village must issue non-referendum

bonds

is out of our hands.

The Village has been told and by

this

order

is being told,

that it must abate pollution.

With the

relief provided by Section 46,

lack of money is no excuse.

We

feel,

therefore,

that no benefit would be served by

a Board hear-

ing,

since the only issue to be decided would be whether pollution

should be

abated.

We can decide that without

a hearing.

We will

require that the Villag4

tell us how they are going to finance

this project.

This type of report was also made mandatory

in the

Marion case,

supra.

This opinion constitutes

the Board’s findings

of fact and

conclusions of law.

ORDER

1.

The petition of

the Village of Lena

for

a variance

extending the date

for compliance with the treatment and effluent

standards

of SWB-14 until December

1,

1972

is hereby granted on

condition that

the provisions of this Order

are met.

2.

The Village

of Lena shall abate its discharge of

inadequately treated sewage

in accordance with its revised program

with

the following schedule:

a)

Completion of plans and

specifications and sub-

mission to Agency

:

By March

15,

1972

b)

Award of construction

contracts

:

By July

1,

1972

c)

Completion of project

as outlined by

the

Village

:

By December

1,

1972

3

—

712

---

3.

Within forty—five

(45)

days of the receipt of this

Order,

the Village shall submit to the Board and the Agency a

plan assuring financing of the program herein approved,

together

with

a study by bond counsel discussing

the various financing alter-

natives available.

I, Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board,

cer~fy that

the Board adopted the

above Opinion and Order this

~ day of March, 1972 by

a vote of

9~’O

~

4’l’

.~

~-

3

—

713

---