ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 28,
1987
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
THE JOINT PETITION OF THE CITY
)
PCB 85—219
OF WATSEKA AND THE ILLINOIS
)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
)
FOR EXCEPTION TO THE COMBINED
)
SEWER OVERFLOW REGULATIONS
)
MR. JEFFERY FORT,
14R. FREDERICK MOORE, JR., MARTIN, CRAIG,
CHESTER & SONNENSCHEIN
AND
MR. DALE STROUGH, FLEMING AND STROUGH
APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF WATSEKA; AND
MS. KATHLEEN BASSI APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.D. Dumelle):
This matter
comes before
the
Board upon
a December
30,
1985
joint petition filed by the City of Watseka
(Watseka) and the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
for
an
exception
to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.305(a)
and
(b)
of the Board’s
combined sewer overflow
(CSO) regulations based on minimal
discharge
impact.
Hearing was held on March 25, 1986,
at which
testimony and exhibits were presented.
There was no disagreement
as
to
the facts.
The Board entered an Interim Order on December
18,
1986,
requesting additional information to which
the Agency
responded on January 29,
1987.
Watseka admits that existing overflows from its combined
sewer system cause violations of water quality standards.
However, Watseka contends that after completion of proposed
improvements
to that combined sewer system,
the resulting
overflows will have minimal
impact on the Iroquois River
and
Sugar Creek
(the receiving streams)
and will not restrict stream
use.
Watseka further contends that compliance with the Board’s
CSO regulations requiring CSO treatment facilities estimated to
cost an additional $1,072,000 would produce little benefit beyond
that realized by the proposed improvements.
Watseka, population 5,205,
is located
in east central
Illinois south of the Iroquois River and east of Sugar Creek at
the confluence of the two streams.
Watseka serves as
the county
seat for Iroquois County.
Watseka
is served by 5.6 miles of separate sanitary sewers
and 19.6 miles of combined
sewers all collecting wastes from
2,300
sewer users and draining 710
acres.
Three sewer
interceptors having a total capacity of 26.2 million gallons per
78-125
—2—
day
(MGI))
transport sewage to the wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) which provides secondary treatment and disinfection for
dry weather flows.
The existing treatment plant, constructed
in
1956,
has a dry weather flow capacity of
0.8 MGD and
a maximum
capacity of 2.0 MG).
The WWTP discharges effluent
to the
Iroquois River.
In addition,
two interceptors having
a combined
capacity
in excess of
6.83 MGD convey flow to the Mulberry Street
pump station which has a dry weather capacity of approximately
0.35 MGD.
The Mulberry Street pump station discharges into the
interceptor system tributary to the WWTP.
(R. at 36—37).
Five combined sewer overflows exist on the Watseka sewer
system.
Two overflows located near the treatment plant have
a
combined capacity of approximately 26.0 MGD and bypass excess
flows from the interceptors directly to the Iroquois River.
Another overflow located
in the same area,
the Kay Street
overflow, has a capacity of 12.0 MGD and bypass excess flows
from
the interceptors directly to the Iroquois River.
The
two
remaining overflow points,
the Mulberry Street and Maple Street
overflows, have
a capacity of 10.0 MGD and 4.4 MGD, respectively,
and discharge to Sugar Creek.
(R.
at 37).
For the past twenty years Watseka has attempted to reduce
the wastewater load on its WWTP.
Such efforts include separating
out storm
flows from the sanitary sewer system, adopting a
downspout disconnection ordinance
in 1985 and requiring that new
developments provide stormwater retention and separate stormwater
and sanitary sewers.
For
one—year, one—hour design storm with
a rainfall
intensity of 1.2 inches per hour,
the peak first
flush rates and
volumes and the associated BOD and suspended solids
(SS) levels
as experienced
in Watseka are as follows:
Peak
Sewer
First Flush
First Flush
~)D
SS
Service area
Flow (MG))
Volume (gal.)
(pour~3s)
(pourx~s)
Interceptors tributary
to ~WrPar~Iroquois
River
14.96
435,000
614
2,400
Interceptors tributary
to Mulberry St. Pump
6.09
224,300
269
1,577
Total
____
_______
_____
21.05
659,300
883
3,977
In the vicinity of Watseka,
the predominant uses of the
Iroquois River
and Sugar
Creek are rural and agricultural
drainage.
Recreational
uses include fishing and canoeing.
7R19f~
—3—
Watseka asserts that there
is very little private access
to the
receiving streams with the only public boat access being located
upstream from to the wastewater
treatment plant discharge and
downstream from the wastewater treatment plant discharge and
downstream from the Mulberry Street pump station CSO outfall.
(R. 79).
Watseka has submitted three studies in support of its
petition for CSO exception.
The Phase
I study (Exhibit
2B)
provides the background information on the Watseka sewer system,
the receiving streams and the drainage area tributary to each
overflow.
The Phase II study (Exhibit 2C) consists of the
preliminary stream inspection which includes a physical
inspection of the overflow points,
a side stream property
investigation and an inspection of stream hydraulic and
morophological factors.
The third study consists of photographs
of stream sediment samples.
(Exhibit 2F).
The Phase
II
study
(Exhibit 2C) documents the CSO—related
impacts on the receiving streams and on the area
in the vicinity
of each CSO outfall.
The study concluded
that the WWTP outfalls
cause pollution.
However,
the study concluded that
it was not
persistent or long—lasting
at any areas except the outlet
to the
river
and was limited
to perhaps a strip 100 feet long and 10
feet wide.
The same conclusion was reached for the Mulberry
Street pumping station CSO outfall.
For the Kay Street CSO
outfall, the study concluded that no notable adverse pollution
effects were found.
The study pointed out that this overflow is
considered mostly storm sewer
and carries minimal sanitary sewage
overflow.
For the Maple Street outfall,
the study concluded that
no notable adverse pollutional effects were found.
However, the
study pointed out that even though this overflow point was not
sampled during the First Flush Analysis, City personnel have
indicated that sanitary sewage overflows from this overflow point
during storm conditions.
(Exhibit 2C at 17—18).
Watseka evaluated six alternatives to achieve compliance,
three of which were considered for further study.
These three
consist of Full Compliance,
Partial Compliance
and Partial
Compliance with Kay Street overflow.
Watseka has chosen
to
implement the last alternative because
it has the lowest total
capital
cost and lowest present worth.
Furthermore, Watseka
believes that the removal of an additional 168 lbs.
of BOD and
407
lbs.
of SS per 1—year, 1—hour storm event does not justify an
additional expenditure of $766,000
in construction costs.
The Full Compliance alternative would provide complete
treatment of all dry weather flows and first
flush flows.
Excess
flows
(up to 10 times dry weather
flow)
would
be captured and
transported
to the
WWTP
and receive primary treatment.
The total
construction cost
of this alternative was estimated to be $4.0
million and involve annual operation and maintenance costs of
$207,100.
7L197
—4—
The Partial Compliance alternative would provide complete
treatment of all dry weather flows and first flush
flows.
Flows
greater
than 2.5 times dry weather flow would be discharged
without
treatment following first
flush capture.
The total
construction cost of this alternative was estimated to
be $3.3
million and involve annual operation and maintenance costs of
$197,100.
The Partial Compliance with the Kay Street overflow
alternative would capture and transport to the treatment plant
the first flush flows from the Maple Street, Mulberry Street and
WWTP CSO outfalls.
After these flows are captured and
transported, only flows up to 2.5 times dry weather flow will be
transported
to the treatment plant.
The remaining
flows
for the
Maple Street and Mulberry Street overflows will be discharged to
Sugar Creek via the Mulberry Street overflow.*
The remaining
flows
for the W~TPwill be discharged
to
the Iroquois River via
the WWTP bypass.
For the Kay Street CSO, only flows
up to 2.5
times dry weather flow will be directed
to the treatment plant.
This will
be provided by existing facilities.
No first flush
flows
from the Kay Street CSO will be directed
to the treatment
plant.
Other additions include upgrading the pumping facilities
at the Mulberry Street pumping station and construction a new
first flush pumping station for the first
flush flows
at the two
WWTP overflows and
a first flush storage facility.
Lastly,
a new
final clarifier and an effluent pumping station which must be
constructed
to prevent flooding during high river stages are
proposed.
Watseka contends that the recommended proposal will result
in a 70
reduction
in SS
and a 36
reduction in BOD being
discharged
to the receiving streams.
It was estimated that full
compliance would result in an 80
reduction in SS
and 55
reduction
in BOD being discharged to
the receiving streams.
The total construction cost of the recommended alternative
was estimated
to be $2.0 million and involve annual operation and
maintenance of $193,000.
Construction of the recommended
alternative will be phased
in over
a twenty year period.
Phase
I
will include construction of the necessary facilities to capture
the first
flush
flows that are tributary to the WWTP.
Phase
I is
expected
to be completed
in June, 1989 with construction costs
being $1.2 million and annual operation and maintenance costs
being $17,000.
Phase
II will include construction of the
necessary improvements to capture and transport the first flush
to the treatment plant.
Phase
II construction is scheduled to
commence
in the Spring of 1993 and to be completed in 1994 with
*
The Maple Street overflow is located on an
interceptor which
is tributary
to the Mulberry Street pumping station where the
Mulberry Street CSO outfall
is located.
IL128
—5—
construction costs being $932,000 and annual operation and
maintenance costs being
$16,000.
Lastly, Phase
III will include
construction of modifications and additional
treatment facilities
at the
WWTP.
Phase
III construction
is scheduled to commence in
the Spring
of 2003 and
to be completed late
in 2003
or
in 2004
with construction costs being $619,000 and no annual operation
and maintenance costs.
Based upon the evidence presented by Watseka jointly with
the Agency and the factors set forth
in Section 306.361(a),
the
Board concludes that the record supports the granting of an
exception to Watseka from Sections 306.305(a)
and (b).
While the
Phase
II study observed the presence of isolated sludge deposits,
these deposits were small
in size.
The most notable sludge
deposit occurs at the point where
the discharge from the WWTP CSO
outfalls enters the Iroquois River.
These outfalls discharge to
a slough which carries the flow to the Iroquois River.
At the
outlet to the river
a pool exists which is caused by a fallen
tree.
This pool traps material which would otherwise have
entered the river and been dispersed.
Another
sludge deposit
occurs at the Mulberry Street pumping
station CSO outfall.
This
outfall discharges twenty feet back from the bank
of the Sugar
Creek
in an area that pools.
A sludge deposit was noted at the
pool’s outlet near the bank of the Sugar Creek but disappeared
within a few feet of the bank.
Of the alternatives evaluated by Watseka, the Board believes
that the Full Compliance alternative would not result
in any
appreciable environmental benefit over and above
the benefit
achieved by the recommended alternative and, therefore,
is not
economically justified.
Also, the Partial Compliance alternative
is not economically justified
in that
it would require Watseka to
spend
an additional $137,000 for construction and an additional
$4,100
for annual 0/H expenses
to transport the first flush of
storm flows
from the Kay Street overflow to the wastewater
treatment plant.
The Kay Street overflow activates during the
later stages
of
a
rainfall event and, therefore, has
a more
dilute flow in terms of SS and BOD.
(R. at 38).
In addition,
most sewers tributary to the Kay Street CSO are separate
storm
sewers and drainage tiles.
(R. at 42).
Mr. Ernest Grove, Mayor
of Watseka, testified that Watseka
cannot pay
for the recommended
improvements on its own within its
general obligation authority.
(R.
at 14).
Additional economic
concerns have been expressed including the fact that
approximately 25
of the population
in Watseka
is composed of
senior citizens who are on fixed incomes and who would
be
severely affected by any increase
in taxes to pay for the
necessary improvements.
~R. at
12).
Such
a tax increase could
also result
in the City’s largest employer moving out of
Watseka.
(R. at 16).
However, Watseka was recently awarded
a
Build Illinois appropriation of $367,000 for FY87.
Watseka has
ia.1 29
—6—
evidenced
its intentions to proceed with the project by
representing that it will apply
those funds to Phase
I
improvements should
the Board grant
the exception.*
Thus,
Watseka believes that the project recommended by the Agency is
now within
its budget.
The Board concurs with the Agency’s assessment that,
while
swift completion of the entire project would be most effective,
the recommended phased approach is acceptable because
it
mitigates the economic impact on Watseka without substantial
detriment to the environment.
Once Phase
I improvements are
completed and operational,
a substantial number of the CSO—
related
impacts will
be resolved.
Therefore,
the Board will
grant Watseka an exception to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.305(a)
and
(b), subject
to certain conditions listed below.
ORDER
1.
The City of Watseka
(Watseka)
is hereby granted an
exception from 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 306.305(a)
as such
provision relates
to the first flush of storm flows
for
combined sewer overflows to the Iroquois River from the
Kay Street overflow.
2.
Watseka is hereby granted an exception from 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 306.305(b),
for all combined sewer overflows
to Sugar Creek and the Iroquois River.
3.
Watseka shall submit plans and specifications to the
Agency by August 31,
1987,
for Phase
I of the proposed
CSO improvements, as described in the amended Municipal
Compliance Plan dated June 30, 1986.
The Phase
I
improvements shall be completed and operational by June
30,
1989.
4.
The Phase
II CSO improvements, as described in the
amended Municipal Compliance Plan dated June 30, 1986,
must be completed and operational
by June 30,
1994.
Watseka shall provide
a more detailed schedule of
implementation for Phase
II CSO improvements by July 1,
1988.
5.
No later
than December
31,
1990,
for Phase
I
improvements, and December
31,
1995,
for Phase
II
improvements, Watseka shall report to the Agency on
performance and effectiveness of improvement including
*
See Response
to Board’s Request for Information,
filed
January 29, 1987.
Further, Watseka’s letter filed Hay
11,
1987,
requesting
an expedited decision implies an ability to fund the
project.
78-130
—7—
extent of overflow reduction and on follow—up stream
inspections
to ensure that there are no observable
water quality violations attributable
to the overflows.
6.
This grant of exception 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 exception and any other
Board
regulations and other controls,
if needed,
for
compliance,
including compliance with water quality
standards.
7.
This grant of exception is not to be construed as
affecting the enforceability of any provisions of this
exception,
other Board regulations, or the
Environmental Protection Act.
IT
IS
SO ORDERED.
Board Member
B.
Forcade dissented.
I, Dorothy
H.
Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order
was
adopted on the
~J’~
day of
~
,
1987 by
a vote
of
______________.
/
Illino:.s P01
on Control Board