ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    January 23, 1986
    GREATER PEORIA SANITARY DISTRICT, )
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 86-14
    )
    )
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    )
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by
    ~. J.
    Nega):
    This provisional variance request comes before the Board
    upon a January 23, 1986 Recommendation* of the Illinois
    Environmental Protection Agency (Agency). The Agency recommends
    that a 45-day provisional variance extension be granted to the
    Greater Peoria Sanitary District (GPSD) from 35 Ill. Adm. Code
    304.120 (deoxygenating wastes), 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.121
    (bacteria), and
    35
    Ill. Adm. Code 304.122 (nitrogen) while
    portions of GPSD’s secondary treatment facilities
    are temporarily
    out of service during the time period that necessary repairs are
    being made.
    The Board previously granted the Petitioner
    a 45-day
    provisional
    variance in PCB 85-193.
    (See:
    Opinion and Order of
    November 21, 1985 in PCB 85-193, Greater Peoria Sanitary District
    v. IEPA.) However, the Petitioner has found that the requisite
    repairs will take more time than originally anticipated and has,
    therefore, requested the instant provisional variance extension.
    The Greater Peoria Sanitary District owns and operates
    wastewater treatment facilities serving the City of Peoria, some
    outlying communities, and several industries. The Petitioner’s
    facilities
    include screening, grit removal, primary and secondary
    clarification, activated sludge, nitrification utilizing rotating
    biological contactors (RBC’s), tertiary ponds, and chlorination
    equipment.
    Prior to its disposal, sludge
    is first thickened,
    treated anaerobically, and then
    dried. The Petitioner’s
    treatment plant has a design average flow of 37 million gallons
    per day (MGD) and
    discharges directly into the
    Illinois River
    pursuant to the
    appropriate NPDES Permit authorization. (1st
    Rec. 1; 2nd Rec. 1-2).
    *The Agency has incorporated
    by reference
    its November 21,
    1985 Recommendation in PCB 85-193 into its January 23, 1986
    Recommendation in PCB
    86-14. Accordingly, the November 21, 1985
    Recommendation in PCB 85-193 will be cited as
    “1st Rec.”, while
    the January 23, 1986 Recommendation in PCB 86-14 will be
    cited as
    “2nd Rec.”.
    67-553

    -2--
    During the middle of October, 1985, the Petitioner
    discovered that, due to groundwater related erosion problems,
    portions of its secondary treatment system’s aeration tanks,
    aeration gallery, and secondary clarifiers had become seriously
    undermined. Bottoms of several aeration tanks, a part of the
    aeration gallery floor, and at least one corner of the bottom of
    one secondary clarifier had dropped up to two inches into the
    voids below. As a result of the leaks that had started
    developing in the walls and floors of its activated sludge tanks,
    mixed liquor was flowing in a stream up to 4 inches deep into the
    aeration gallery. The aeration gallery, which houses equipment
    for the aeration tanks, is a tunnel-like structure which is below
    grade and next to the aeration tanks.
    To stop these leaks and to provide access for investigatory
    work and repairs as well as to minimize additional undermining of
    the tanks, the Petitioner removed nine of its twelve aeration
    tanks and three of its five secondary clarifiers from service in
    mid-October. Of the remaining three aeration tanks, two are
    being utilized as contact tanks and the third is being utilized
    as a reaeration tank. The Petitioner’s employees have begun to
    dewater various aeration tanks in order to find the leaks. The
    apparent cause of the leaks is the development of “voids” (i.e.,
    areas of water and/or mud) beneath aeration tanks. (1st Rec. 1;
    2nd Rec. 2).
    The Petitioner is currently required by its NPDES Permit
    #1L0O21288 to meet effluent limitations of 20 mg/i of biochemical
    oxygen demand (BOD) on a 30 day average with a 40 mg/l BOD limit
    as a weekly average, and to meet effluent limitations of 25 mg/l
    of total suspended solids (TSS) on a 30 day average with a 45
    mg/i TSS limit as a weekly average. This NPDES Permit also
    delineates a 2.5 mg/l effluent standard for ammonia nitrogen as N
    during the months of April through October, and a 4.0 mg/l
    effluent standard for ammonia nitrogen as N during the months of
    November through March. (1st Rec. 2).
    According to discharge monitoring reports submitted to the
    Agency by the Petitioner, the following results were indicated:
    Monthly Average
    NH3-N
    Flow
    BOD
    TSS
    Month
    (MCD)
    (mg/i)
    (mg/l)
    (mg/i)
    9/85
    22.29
    4
    4
    1.9
    8/85
    22.65
    4
    4
    1.9
    7/85
    22.31
    5
    7
    1.2
    6/85
    23.24
    7
    ii
    2.5
    5/85
    23.21
    7
    10
    3.1
    4/85
    29.06
    5
    10
    2.5
    67-554

    —3-
    Monthly Average
    NH3-N
    Flow
    BOD
    TSS
    Month
    (MCD)
    (mg/i)
    (mg/i)
    (mg/i)
    3/85
    34.39
    7
    20
    1.8
    2/85
    29.12
    5
    8
    2.6
    1/85
    25.57
    7
    8
    2.1
    12/84
    28.18
    4
    7
    1.4
    11/84
    26.14
    7
    7
    3.0
    10/84
    22.99
    12
    7
    3.8
    Average
    25.76
    6.2
    8.7
    2.3
    (1st Rec. 2).
    However, due to the groundwater-related erosion problems and
    the tank leaks, the Petitioner has indicated to the Agency that
    its effluent quality has already significantly deteriorated. For
    example, the average BOD for all of October 1985 was 15 mg/i,
    while the average BOD for the last half of October, 1985, when
    flows had begun to be diverted, was 22 mg/i. (1st Rec. 2). The
    Petitioner has reported that TSS levels have experienced similar
    deterioration due to the problems at the facility. Moreover, it
    is possible that fecal coliform levels might rise due to
    increased chlorine demand and CPSD anticipates
    that the effluent
    quality will deteriorate even further in the near future. (1st
    Rec. 2).
    Since CPSD’s rotating biological contactor nitrification
    system is currently receiving much of the plant’s primary
    effluent, a very real risk of overloading the RBC shafts
    exists. The Petitioner is now providing effluent treatment by
    use of its three in-service aeration tanks and by diverting flows
    to the RBC’s, and then to the polishing pond and chlorination.
    In reference of this diversion of flows to the RBC’s, the Agency
    has stated that:
    “...
    the RBC’s were not designed to treat the
    strength of wastes that are now being applied to
    them. Based upon the Agency’s past experience with
    RBC’s, structural failure of the RBC’s could result
    due to the increased biomass growth on the units
    thus causing the shafts to break due to the extra
    weight of the biomass. Petitioner’s personnel are
    routinely monitoring the performance of the RBC’s
    and will be able to provide minimum treatment
    consisting of primary clarification, tertiary
    clarification, the polishing lagoon, and
    chlorination.” (1st Rec. 2).
    The Agency has noted that CPSD has already begun corrective
    action in that core drillings which are about two inches in
    diameter have been completed which led to the determination that
    some of the voids beneath the aeration gallery floor are as deep
    67-555

    —4—
    as 89 inches. The Petitioner’s core drillings were taken about
    every five to ten feet through the aeration gallery floor and
    core samples which are about five inches in diameter have been
    analyzed.
    In reference to the plan of corrective action and the
    necessary repair and maintenance work, the Agency has indicated
    that:
    “The core drillings have been completed
    and Petitioner has determined a course of
    corrective action. Another 150 holes will be
    drilled in the floor of the gallery and the
    aeration tanks. Also, the drainage system
    under the tanks will be plugged. Once these
    actions are completed, Petitioner will begin
    pumping pressure grouting.
    ...At the last meeting of Petitioner’s
    Board of Trustees, a proposal was made by
    Petitioner’s technical staff to begin these
    repairs under change order, thus expediting
    the commencement of repairs. The Board agreed
    and the additional borings should have already
    begun. Pumping of the pressure grout should
    begin in two (2) weeks. Petitioner believes
    that repairs should be completed by
    February 19, 1986. Petitioner does not know
    how much grout will have to be pumped in order
    to repair the tanks.
    ...Petitioner has been using its
    remaining treatment units as required by the
    previous order. The RBC’s are currently
    loaded at about 75 of their design loading
    and if biomass continues to grow as expected,
    these units may have to be partially by-passed
    to prevent their failure.
    ...Petitioner reports that it is meeting
    the terms of the variance. However, it is
    concerned that because of the reduced
    treatment capability and thus increased
    chlorine demand that fecal coliform levels in
    its effluent are high while chlorine residual
    levels are at or near zero. The chlorination
    equipment is apparently operating at its
    maximum capacity. Petitioner has been
    continuing its ammonia nitrogen study on the
    Illinois River and believes that there has
    been no noticeable impact even though the
    67-556

    —5—
    Illinois River is now below normal pool
    elevation.”
    (2nd Rec. 2-3).
    The Agency expects that there will be little adverse
    environmental impact upon the Illinois River from CPSD’s
    presently degraded discharge,
    because the Illinois
    River at
    Petitioner’s
    discharge point provides a dilution ratio of
    about
    74 to
    1 using the Illinois
    River’s 7 day, 10 year low flow and
    CPSD’s average flow over the past year (1st Rec. 2-3). Moreover,
    the Petitioner will also be providing as much treatment as
    possible which will serve to reduce the environmental impact
    further over the discharging of raw sewage. (1st Rec. 3; 2nd
    Rec. 3). The Petitioner’s discharge is approximately 168 miles
    upstream from the nearest public water supply intake which is the
    City of Alton’s intake on the Mississippi River. (1st Rec. 3;
    2nd Rec. 4).
    Based on the inability of the Petitioner to provide full
    treatment when units had to be taken out of service to retain
    what was left of their structural integrity, the Agency has
    stated that the “Petitioner’s hardship in this case is readily
    apparent.” (1st Rec. 2; 2nd Rec. 3). The Agency has also
    indicated that there are no federal regulations that would
    preclude the granting of the provisional variance.
    The Agency has therefore concluded that compliance with
    applicable standards would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable
    hardship upon the Greater Peoria Sanitary District. (1st Rec. 2;
    2nd Rec. 1). Accordingly, the Agency has recommended that the
    Board grant Petitioner a provisional variance extension from 35
    Ill. Adm. Code 304.120, 304.121, and 304.122, subject to certain
    conditions.
    Pursuant to Section 35(b) of the Illinois Environmental
    Protection Act, the Board will grant the provisional variance
    extension as recommended.
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
    conclusions of law in this matter.
    ORDER
    The Creater Peoria Sanitary District is hereby granted a 45-
    day extension of its prior provisional variance from 35 Ill. Adm.
    Code 304.120, 304.121, and 304.122, subject to the following
    conditions:
    1. The provisional variance shall commence on January 5,
    1986 and shall terminate 45 days thereafter.
    2. During the term of this provisional variance, the
    Petitioner’s effluent shall be limited as follows:
    67-557

    —6—
    Parameter
    Monthly Average
    BOD
    50 mg/l
    TSS
    50 rng/l
    Ammonia nitrogen discharges shall not cause a violation of
    water quality standards.
    3.
    Chlorination shall be provided for all flows discharged
    through Outfall OOla and the Petitioner shall make every effort
    to comply with the 400/100 ml fecal coliform standard.
    4.
    The Petitioner
    shall provide the maximum degree of
    treatment possible by using all treatment units possible.
    5. The Petitioner shall immediately notify the Agency’s
    Peoria Regional Office by telephone if more units are removed
    from service and when the aeration units are returned to
    service.
    This notification
    shall be supplemented by a written
    notice within 5 days submitted to:
    Illinois
    Environmental Protection Agency
    Division of Water Pollution Control
    Compliance Assurance Section
    2200 Churchill Road
    Springfield, Illinois 62706
    Attention: Mr. Roger Cruse
    6. Within 10 days of the date of the Board’s Order, the
    Petitioner shall execute a Certification of Acceptance and
    Agreement which shall be sent to Mr. James Frost of the Agency at
    the following address:
    Mr. James Frost
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    Division of Water Pollution Control
    2200 Churchill Road
    Springfield, Illinois 62706
    This certification
    shall have the following form:
    I, (We),
    ,
    having read
    the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in PCB 86-14,
    dated January 23, 1986, understand and accept the said Order,
    realizing that such acceptance renders all terms and conditions
    thereto binding and enforceable.
    Petitioner
    By: Authorized Agent
    67-558

    —7--
    Title
    Date
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the, above Opinion and Order was
    adopted on the
    _______________
    day of
    ~
    ,
    1986 by a vote
    of
    _____________.
    /
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois
    Pollution Control Board
    67-559

    Back to top