ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 27, 1989

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION

)

OF THE CITY OF HAVANA FOR A

)

R88-25

SITE-SPECIFIC RULE CHANGE TO THE

)

COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW

)

REGULATIONS

)

PROPOSED RULE.

FIRST NOTICE.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE

BOARD

(by M. Nardulli):

This matter comes before the Board from a September

1,

1988

petition for site—specific relief filed on behalf of

the City of

Havana

(Havana).

Havana is seeking regulatory relief

for two

locations from 35

Ill. Adm. Code Sections 306.305(a) and

306.306(c) which require all combined sewer overflows

to be given

sufficient treatment to meet applicable effluent standards for

all dry weather flows and the first

flush of storm flows as

determined by the Agency by December

31,

1975.

The Board’s CSO regulations are contained in 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code, Part 306.

They were amended in R8l—17,

51 PCB 383, March

24,

1983.

Sections pertinent to the instant matter are Sections

306.305 and 306.361(a).

Section 306.305 provides as follows:

All combined sewer overflows and treatment plant bypasses

shall be given sufficient treatment

to prevent polution,

or

the violation of applicable water standards unless an

exception has been granted by the Board pursuant

to Subpart

D.

Sufficient treatment shall consist of the following:

a)

All dry weather flows,

and the first flush of storm

flows as determined

by the Agency,

shall meet

the

applicable effluent

standards; and

b)

Additional

flows,

as determined by the Agency but not

less than ten times average dry weather

flow for the

design year,

shall receive

a minimum of primary

treatment and disinfection with adequate retention time;

and

c)

Flows

in excess of those described in subsection

(b)

shall be treated,

in whole or

in part,

to the extent

necessary to prevent accumulations of sludge deposits,

floating debris and solids

in accordance with

35

Ill.

101—359

---

—2—

Adm. Code 302.203, and to prevent depression of oxygen

levels; or

d)

Compliance with a treatment program authorized by the

Board in an exception granted pursuant to Subpart

D.

The following site-specific rule was proposed by the

petitioner in its petition:

Section 306.503

Havana Site—Specific Discharges

The two dischar~esfrom the combined sewer

system of

the City of Havana,

as described

below, shall not be subject to the treatment

requirements of Section 306.305(a)

nor the

compliance date of Section 306.306(c).

The

Washington Street discharge is located at the

foot of Washington Street in the Northwest

Quarter,

Section

1, Township 21 North, Range

9

West of the Third Principal Meridian and can

further be defined as being located at West

90°,4 minutes

0 seconds longitude and North

40°,17 minutes 55 seconds latitude.

The

Illinois Street discharge is located at the

foot of Illinois Street

in the Southwest

Quarter, Section

1, Township 21 North, Range

9

West of the Third Principal Meridian and can

further be defined as being located at North

40°,17 minutes 35 seconds latitude and West

90°, 4 minutes

5 seconds longitude.

Hearing was held in this matter on November

30,

1988

in

Havana, Mason County.

At the hearing,

two witnesses were called

and were examined by representatives of

Havana, the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency

(“Agencyt’)

and the Department of

Energy and Natural Resources (“DENR”).

No members of

the public

were present at the hearing.

On December

5,

the City of Havana

notified the Board that

it did not intend to file post—hearing

comments.

The Agency filed

its post—hearing comments on January

19,

1989.

In

its post—hearing comments the Agency states that

Havana has several serious deficiencies in

its petition and has

not adequately explored alternative options and costs.

Havana

responded to the Agency’s post—hearing comments on March

14, 1989

by submitting

its engineering consultant’s responses to the

Agency’s claims of deficiencies.

The petitioner’s response to

the post—hearing comments

of the Agency was admitted to the

record of this case as public comment

#2.

On December

27,

1988,

DENR filed a negative declaration

stating its determination that the preparation of

a formal

economic impact study was not necessary in this proceeding.

The

101—360

---

—3—

negative declaration was based on DENR’s finding

that the net

economic impact of the regulation was favorable and the costs of

compliance are small or are borne entirely by the proponent of

the regulation.

Thus, DENR found that the cost of making

a

formal study

is economically unreasonable in relation to the

value of the study of the Board.

After consideration of DENR’s

negative declaration, the Board issued an order on March

2,

1989

stating that an economic impact study was not necessary.

BACKGROUND

The City of Havana

is located on the Illinois River

approximately

40 miles downstream of

the Peoria Lock and Dam.

The city has

a population of approximately 4300 people.

The

majority of Havana

is served by a combined sewer

system.

There

are no significant industrial discharges into the combined sewer

system.

The industries within Havana that produce industrial

waste are presently processing and disposing of

their own wastes.

Havana presently operates one wastewater treatment facility

——

an activated sludge process with a rated capacity of 0.7 MGD

and a peak capacity

of 3.0 MGD.

In addition to the main

discharge at the treatment plant,

there are four combined sewer

overflow points

in the collection system.

Havana

is currently

authorized to discharge from the overflows under

an NPDES

permit.

The wastewater treatment plant

is currently in

compliance with effluent limitations.

The major needs to achieve

compliance are related to the combined sewer overflows.

In the petition,

the petitioner proposed a two—phase project

to come into compliance.

The actions

to be taken under Phase

I

would be:

1.

Permanently seal the Tremont Street overflow

with concrete

to eliminate overflows and

prevent river backflow.

This outlet was

temporarily plugged throughout 1986 with no

reported problems of sewer backups

or basement

flooding.

2.

Remove the existing sanitary flow from the

Market Street combined sewer

by

installing

approximately 250

ft.

of

8”

sanitary sewer and

new service connections.

The Market Street

overflow would then become strictly

a storm

sewer.

3.

Submit

site specific rule change request

supported by the results of the river sediment

study and the first flush study.

It

is

anticipated that no additional improvements

10

1—361

---

—4--

will be required.

Phase

2 will include improvements as may be directed by the

Illinois Pollution Control Board order

in response to the site

specific rule change request.

If no site specific regulatory

relief is granted by the Board,

the Phase

2 improvements would

call for the construction of off—line storage facilities at the

Illinois and Washington Street overflow locations.

Neither the

Phase

I nor Phase

II changes are expected to

impact treatment

operation or plant capacity, but would bring them into compliance

with the first flush requirements as well as the requirements for

ten times the dry weather flow.

TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY AND ECONOMIC REASONABLENESS

Among the factors considered by the Board in reviewing

a

request for a site-specific rule is whether compliance with the

general rule

is technically feasible or economically

reasonable.

Central Illinois Light Company v.

Illinois Pollution

Control Board,

511 N.E.

2d 269,

271,

110 Ill.

Dec.

434,

436

(1987), Proposed Amendments

to 35

Ill. Mm.

Code 212.209, Village

of Winnetka Generating Station, R86—41 (November

3,

1988).

The

Board must also be convinced that the petitioner has evaluated

other alternative compliance plans and that the proposal

presented for consideration represents

the best mode of

compliance.

Proposed Site Specific Rule Change for City of

Mendota:

35

111. Mm. Code 306.304, R88—6

(April

6,

1989).

The engineering study presented by Havana does not claim

that compliance with the general rule

is not technically

feasible.

The study details

a plan by which Havana could come

into compliance.

Therefore,

technical feasibility

is not at

issue

in this proceeding.

Havana bases its argument for

site—

specific relief on the economic reasonableness of complying with

the regulation.

Havana argues that full compliance,

as proposed

in Phase

2, would cost over $5.5 million or a total user

charge

of approximately $41.45/month.

Havana also relies on the

Illinois State Water Survey at Havana to argue

that the overflows

have

rio detrimental environmental impact.

In 1986,

Havana retained Randolph and Associates to prepare

a Municipal Compliance Plan

to investigate means

by which Havana

could achieve compliance with the regulations involving combined

sewer discharges.

Randolph and Associates also performed a first

flush study

to determine the quantity and composition of the

combined sewer overflOw discharges.

Havana also commissioned the

Illinois State Water Survey to assess

the sediment conditions

in

the vicinity of the outfalls and to observe apparent impacts of

overflows.

The alternatives

for compliance considered by the

city included partial separation,

peak storage at

the plant and

full compliance.

The partial separation was included

in Phase

I

101—362

---

—5—

to the extent that was considered practical.

Because of the

large first

flush flowrates and volumes,

it was not considered

reasonable

to transport all of these

flows directly to the plant

for treatment.

The engineers determined that the most cost

effective approach for achieving full compliance would be to

provide storage

for the first flush volumes and ten times the dry

weather flow at each overflow location.

Havana’s plan

for full compliance would require the

construction of off-line storage

facilities at the Washington and

Illinois Streets overflow locations.

Havana’s engineers

determined that the Washington Street overflow would require

272,000 cubic

feet of

storage and 95,000 cubic feet of

storage

would be required at

Illinois Street.

Based on the cost of

similar projects,

the engineers determined that the construction

of the collect.ion system would cost approximately four millions

dollars.

The total construction cost,

including engineering,

land acquisition and unspecified contingencies, would be

approximately $5.6 million.

As

a result,

full compliance would

result

in at total user charge of about $41.50 per month.

The medium annual household income

in Havana

is $14,561.

The petitioner cites an Agency affordability

range of $18 to $24

per month for

a user

in a community with this level

of medium

annual household income.

Consequently, Havana argues achieving

full compliance does not appear

feasible.

Havana also states

that the project would require all of the city’s available funds

and all of its practical debt allowance,

restraining the city’s

ability to issue debt for any other

improvements.

At hearing,

representatives from Havana stated that only about $300,000 would

be available from the State

for the required improvements

(R.

25).

In its post-hearing comments,

the Agency clarified the

issue of

funding

by stating that a grant of approximately

$225,000 would be available to Havana.

The city also maintains that requiring full compliance with

the regulations

is unreasonable because the detrimental

environmental impact,

as

a result of the discharges,

is

minimal.

The engineering study estimated that the annual

overflow volume would be approximately 1.515 million cubic feet

at Illinois Street and 4.527 million cubic

feet at Washington

Street.

The engineers collected overflow samples

in Havana

during storms on September

11 and September

26,

1986.

The

analysis of these samples showed that only one sample had

a BOD

concentration above

the normal dry weather base of 160 mg/i.

However,

a number

of suspended solid

level values were above the

base level of 190 mg/i.

To confirm its belief that

the level

of discharges from the

overflows was not detrimental

to the environment, Havana

commissioned a study

to assess

the Illinois River bottom

sediments

in the vicinity of Havana’s combined sewer overflows.

The Illinois State Water

Survey Division of the DENR,

in

101—363

---

—6—

cooperation with Randolph and Associates, collected and examined

core and dredge samples from the area of the overflows on August

1,

4,

5 and 26,

1986.

Persistent wet weather preceded the

sampling and sufficient rainfall occurred during the early

morning hours of August

4 to cause the Washington Street outfall

to overfall during a short period of sampling.

The study states

that none of the core or dredge samples displayed a sewage or

sewage-like odor.

The study made the following conclusions:

1.

Discharges from the combined sewer overflows

at Havana do not appear to be creating either

short—term or long—term sediment pollution

problems.

The bay—like area which

historically received small disch~argesfrom

the Tremont Street overflow is experiencing

rapid siltation, but deep core samples taken

in the area show no traces of sewage sludge or

sewage—contaminated sediments.

The sediment

in the riverine areas around and below

the

Market,

Washington,

and Illinois Street

outfalls consists of relatively clean sand and

coarse material which show no evidence of

sewage pollution.

2.

Some sediments

in areas around the Washington

Street overflow exhibit organic contamination

other than

that originating from sewage

discharges.

A grain elevator and grain-

loading facilities are centered around this

outfall.

Grain from spillage appears to

settle to the bottom,

raising the organic

content of the sediments and causing

relatively high sediment oxygen demand rates.

3.

At no time during

a

study visit were aesthetic

problems observed around any of the

outfalls.

No observations were made of

accumulations of combined sewage overflow

trash

...

which are commonly observed on

shores when CSO’s chronically discharge above

the water’s edge, as do those at Tremont and

Washington Streets.

Based on these studies, Havana argues that

a site—specific

rule should be granted not only because the cost of

compliance is

excessive but because

it

is unreasonable

to require the

expenditure of

the moi~ieyneeded for

full compliance when there is

little evidence of detrimental environmental impact.

In its post—hearing comments,

the Agency states that Havana

has several serious deficiencies

in its petition and has not

adequately explored alternative options and costs.

The engineers

101—364

---

—7—

for Havana responded to each of the Agency’s point

in its

response to the Agency’s comments.

Each comment and

its

corresponding response it presented to

illustrate the

sufficiencies of the petition:

Comment

1.

Havana has asked that the proposed regulatory

relief

be considered under the criteria for

a

Combined Sewer Overflow exception petition, as

in

35 Ill. Adm. Code Part

306, Subpart

D.

An

Agency review of

such criteria indicates the

following deficiencies

in the petition:

a.

The frequency and extent

of overflows

for the CSO’s at Illinois and

Washington Streets are not adequately

documented.

It would be helpful

if

the City could provide the estimated

yearly occurrence and associated

volumes of overflows at the Illinois

and Washington Street outfalls.

This

information will also allow receiving

stream ratios to be calculated.

b.

Accessibility to the river and side

land use activities have not been

adequately explored.

The Agency

is

particularly concerned about the CSO

on Illinois Street.

There is a

boating dock directly over this

outfall

(Tr.

29—30).

A visit

to the

outfall

location by Agency personnel

suggests that picnicing activities may

be common

in this area during summer

months.

The Agency would

like the

City to address

this issue before the

record closes.

Response

la.

The frequency and extent of overflows at

Illinois and Washington Streets were presented

in detail

in EXHIBIT

2 of

the petition.

Specifically,

on pp.8 and

9 of EXHIBIT

2,

the

volumes and frequency of overflows at each

location were documented.

Approximate

receiving stream dilution ratios may be

determined by comparing the river flow rate

with the overflow rates.

In Section 4.0 of

the petition,

the 7—day,

10—year

low flow for

the Illinois River

of Havana

is estimated to

101—365

---

—8—

be 3125 cfs.

Front Figure 3—2 of EXHIBIT

2,

the peak overflow rate is approximately 38 cfs

at Illinois Street and 53 cfs at Washington

Street, for a total of 91 cfs.

This results

in a dilution ratio of at least

34 to

1 during

the lowest river flows.

lb.

Adjacent land uses were presented in Figure

2

of the petition and photographs of the outfall

areas were included on pp.

18—19 of Appendix C

of EXHIBIT

2.

Although access

to the river

does exist

at the boat dock on Illinois

Street, public use activities are virtually

non—existent during overflow events.

There

has been no evidence of public health problem

due to this situation.

Comment

2.

The Agency would also like the City to

indicate whether

the proposed separation

projects in the Market and Jefferson Street

areas will affect

the frequency and volumes of

the Illinois and Washington Street overflows.

Response

2.

The proposed sewer separation in the vicinity

of Market and Jefferson Streets will have

a

small beneficial effect on overflows at

Washington Street and no effect on overflows

at

Illinois Street.

Flows

in

the

Market/Jefferson Street area are pumped by the

Jefferson Street lift station up to the

Washington Street lift station.

Following

completion of the separation project,

there

will be less flow entering the Jefferson

Street pump station during storms, allowing

some additional capacity for pumping combined

sewer

flows at Washington Street.

Since

the

Jefferson Street

lift station flows are just

a

small fraction of total flows at Washington

Street,

the proposed separation will not

substantially change

the frequency and volume

of overflows at Washington.

Comment

3.

The record contains very little information on

the cost of partial compliance alternatives.

The only alternative seriously explored seems

101—366

---

—9—

to be the full compliance alternative.

However,

the cost of this alternative has not

been fully investigated

(Tr.

30—31).

Response

3.

The costs of two intermediate levels

of

compliance identified as Alternative

B and C

were presented in Section

3.4 of

the

petition.

Alternative B

is the proposed

separation project on Market Street and

Alternative C

is peak flow storage at the

plant, discussed in detail on p.

18 of EXHIBIT

2.

More detailed designs and cost estimates

for partial

or full compliance alternatives

are obviated by the lack of

significant

impacts on the receiving stream.

Comment

4.

The

issue of funding arose during the hearing

(Tr.

35—27).

The Director

of the Agency

states that

the City

is eligible for a

$224,849 70

of

$321,200

grant.

Response

4.

The City is aware of possible grant funding

for CSO improvements, but recognizes that any

additional modifications will also require

local

expenditures.

Since the potential

benefits of further

improvements

is very

small,

these grant dollars could be better

utilized

for other projects where greater

benefits

to the receiving stream would

result.

The Board

notes that

IT found no information

concerning

the project for which funding was

approved.

No project with a cost

of

$321,200

was presented by the petitioner

as part

of

this proceeding.

The Board would appreciate

clarification of this point through comments

presented during the First Notice comment

period.

DECISION

Based on the record,

the Board finds

that the petitioner has

made

a sufficient showing

of economic unreasonableness

to allow

the proposed site—specific rule to go to First Notice.

In light

of the large expenditure

required to eliminate the discharges

with respect

to the detrimental effect the discharges appear

to

101—367

---

—10—

have on Illinois’ waterways, compliance with the general rule

appears economically unreasonable.

The Agency’s comments have

been addressed by the petitioner and are not sufficient to keep

the rulemaking from proceeding.

The Board

is unaware of any more

reasonable alternative available to Havana or of any evidence of

greater environmental impact of the discharges.

If such

information is available,

the comment period during First Notice

will allow an opportunity for this information to be presented.

During the First Notice comment period the Board would

appreciate additional information from the Agency and the general

public on the following items:

1.

Evidence of the detrimental environmental impact the

overflows from Havana’s combined sewer system have on

the Illinois River including sediment analysis,

biological surveys and chemical analyses.

2.

Alternative methods of compliance with Section

306.305(a) and 306.306(c)

that are available to Havana

but have not been evaluated.

Also,

information on

methods of practical compliance that would allow Havana

to eliminate some portions of its violations

in an

economically reasonable manner.

3.

Actions or reporting requirements that should be imposed

on Havana as conditions of the granting of the site-

specific sale.

In

the granting of exceptions to the

rules under similar circumstances, the Board has

required the petitioner to

raise overflow sewers,

improve sewer maintenance,

increase street cleaning,

screen overflows and other

items

it felt would reduce

the impact of

the exception.

The Board anticipates

imposing the same type of conditions

in this matter and

would appreciate information concerning which actions

would be effective.

The Board also wishes

to note early in this rulemaking

process that if the site—specific rule is adopted

it does not bar

or prejudice the Agency from requiring further reductions or

elimination of discharges

if unacceptable impact

is shown or

if

new technology becomes available.

To clarify this fact

in the

rule,

the Board is proposing the addition of

the following

languange in the text of the rule:

This site specific rule does not preclude the Agency

from exercising

its authority to require as a permit

condition

a ~SO monitoring program sufficient

to assess

compliance with this rule and any other Board

regulations and other controls,

if needed,

for

compliance,

including compliance with water quality

standards.

Further,

this site specific rule

is not

to

be construed as affecting

the enforceability of any

101—368

---

—11—

provisions

of this

rule,

other Board regulations, or

the Environmental Protection Act.

Similar language has historically been made a part

of

the order

in a grant of exception to the combined sewer overflow

regulations, because of the Board’s concern that the party

granted the exception would incorrectly ascertain that the

exception precluded such actions.

However, the Board has not

used this language

in previous site—specific rules.

The Board

would appreciate comments from the Agency and the general public

as

to whether this language

is necessary

in the rule or whether

it should be assumed that a person reading the rule understands

it must be read in conjunction with the Board’s other

regulations.

ORDER

The Board hereby proposes the following amendment to

35

Ill.

Adm. Code Section

306.

The Board directs the Clerk of the Board

to submit the amendment to the Secretary of State Office

for

First Notice publication.

Section 306.503

Havana Site—Specific Discharges

The two discharges from the combined sewer

system of

the

City of Havana, as described below,

shall not be subject

to the treatment requirements of Section 306.305(a) nor

the compliance date

of Section 306.306(c).

The

Washington Street discharge

is located at the

foot of

Washington Street

in the Northwest Quarter, Section

1,

Township 21 North, Range

9 West

of the Third Principal

Meridian and can further be defined as being located at

West 90°, 4 minutes

0 seconds longitude and North 40°,

17 minutes

55 seconds latitude.

The Illinois Street

discharge

is located

at the foot of Illinois Street

in

the Southwest Quarter,

Section

1, Township

21 North,

Range

9 West

of

the Third Principal Meridian and can

further be defined as being located

at North

400,

17

minutes

35 seconds latitude and West 90°, 4 minutes

5

seconds longitude.

This site—specific

rule does not

preclude the Agency from exercising

its authority to

require as

a permit condition a CSO monitoring program

sufficient

to assess compliance with this

rule and any

other Board regulations and other

controls,

if needed,

for compliance,

including compliance with water quality

startdards.

Further,

this site—specific rule

is not

to

be construed as affecting the enforceability of any

provisions of this rule,

other Board regulations,

or the

Environmental Protection Act.

IT

IS SO ORDERED.

101—369

---

—12—

I, Dorothy M Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

and Order was

adopted on the

7~

day of ______________________

Board, hereby certify that the above Opi~~~

1988, by a vote of

-0

~.

Dorothy M

G,u)fn,

Clerk,

Illinois Po’~,2~utionControl Board

101—370