ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January

26,

1984

CITY OF RUSHVILLE

and

ROYAL REGAL PROJECTS

Petitioners,

PCB 83—144

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

)

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J. Anderson):

This matter comes before the Board on the September

19,

1983

petition for variance filed by the City of Rushville

(Rushville)

and Royal Regal Projects

(Royal Regal),

a residential apartments

developer.

On November 21,

1983,

the parties filed additional

data (supplemental)

at the request of the Environmental Pro-

tection Agency

(Agency).

The parties seek a variance from Sec.

12 and 39 of the Act and from Section

35 Ill.

Adm.

Code Sections

309.202(a) and

(b)(2),

309,203(a)

and 309.241.

The purpose of

the

request

is to allow a sewer extension

from a proposed 24 unit

residential

apartment complex

to connect

into the sewer system

tributary to Rushville’s wastewater treatment plant,

which plant

was recently placed on restricted status.

The Board finds that

the relief sought requires variance only from Section

309.241

(a),

standards

for

permit issuance,

additional relief being

unnecessary.

On December 28,

1983,

the Agency filed

its recom-

mendation

to grant the variance,

with conditions.

Hearing was

waived and

none has

been held.

Rushville

is

located in Schuyler

County, West Central Illinois,

not far from

the Illinois River.

Its

wastewater treatment plant

(WWTP), built

with the aid of construction

grant

funds, began

operating in 1972 and serves

a population of

3,348 persons.

The

WWTP~scurrent hydraulic load

is

0.63 MGD, which

is 175

above

its design hydraulic load of 0.36 MGD,

The

WWTP

discharges into

an unnamed tributary of Crane Creek, which creek

flows into the

Illinois River.

(Agency

Rca,

3,4).

Schuy—Rush Lake

is about 2½

miles downstream from the

WWTP

and, the Agency asserts,

is both

a

recreational lake and a potential water supply

(Pet.

6,

Agency

Rec.

7).

The stream

is

7 day/b

year zero flow.

The stream

56-101

---

—2—

itself

runs

through

agricultural

land

and

is

used

for

“possible

watering

of livestock and wildlife.”

(Pet.

6)

Most of Rushvilie~ssewer system, made up of both sanitary

and combined sewers,

was

constructed in the

1930~s,but some of

the system was

built before 1900.

It

is

in poor condition,

with

broken joints,

collapsed lines,

storm

drains,

etc.

Additionally,

when

an

8

inch pipe capacity is exceeded, the

flows

go to adjacent

storm sewers through

two bypasses.

The Royal

Regal complex

is

proposed to be located upstream of one

of these bypasses.

(Agency

Rec.

3)

The WWTP also bypasses excess storm

flows directly into

the

receiving stream

at a manhole equipped with an unmonitored

baffled

bypass

line.

(Agency

Rec,

4)

Rushville~s applicable NPDES

operating permit,

which was

issued June 10,

1977 and expired

on

March

31,

1981, contains

interim effluent limits of

60 mg/l BOD and

80 mg/l suspended

solids,

The Agency received an application to reissue this

permit on September

2,

1980,

but has not acted on the application,

(Agency Rec.

4)

Rushville~sDMR~sand Agency grab samples taken

during the fall

of 1982 through August 1983 indicate that the

effluent has generally stayed within these limits.

(Agency Rec,5)

Sewage related debris has been observed during Agency inspections

downstream of the WWTP,

Athe Agency also feels that Schuy-Rush

Lake

could be impacted by the WWTP discharge and bypassing and

overflowing from the sewer system (Agency Rec.

7).

Rushville,

on

the other hand,

feels that “water quality

is improving” based on

periodic stream samples, the latest showing

the following:

1)

24 mg/l BOD,

1 mile downstream of the discharge point.

2.

14 mg/l

BOD,

1 mile upstream from Schuy-Rush

Lake.

(Pet.

6,

Supplemental,

1)

Based on a recent questionnaire to its residents

(Supplemental

Attach

#1 and #2) Rushville experiences frequent and widespread

basement flooding from sewer backups and surface flow,

although

Rushville asserts that there are few cases

of basement flooding

in the proposed Royal

Regal project area.

The Agency disagrees

with the latter assertion based on Pet.

Attachment

#2,

a survey

map (Agency Rec,

8), Since Petitioners did not identify the

location of the project v Rushville, the Board will defer to the

Agency s assertion,

Rushville

is now back

in the grants program,

The Agency

asserts that the WWTP has been organically and hydraulically

overloaded since

it began operating

in 1972.

Rushville has

received a facility upgrading Step

1 grant,

and has completed I/I

and SSES analyses in 1976 and 1979 respectively.

It

is anticipating

56-102

---

—3—

grant monies for an additional SSES primarily to cover parts of

the combined sewer system not covered earlier,including the

two

overflows.

Availability of construction and grant money,at a

level of 55,

not 75,

to expand and rehabilitate the system is

uncertain.

However, Rushville’s tentative timetable shows a submittal

of a Facility Plan to the Agency by November, 1984.

(Pet.

5,

Agency Rec.

6)

Meanwhile Rushville, at its own expense, has made

improvements to the plant and collection system costing $64,500,

excluding City—supplied labor

and

materials.

(Pet.

5)

Because

Rushville views the original grant project as an apparent failure,

it intends to cautiously wait until the Step I data collection is

completed before evaluating alternatives or committing any further

large sums of money.

(Pet.

7)

The Agency pointed out that the 1979 SSES found that infit-

tration and inflow can cost effectively be reduced by 126,000 gpd

and 1.1 MGD with an expenditure of $66,000 and $73,000 respectively.

However,

the Agency acknowledges that these figures could change

somewhat after completion of additional SSES work, and that no

estimates of WWTP upgrading costs can be made at this

time

(Agency

Rec.

6).

On June 13,

1983, the Agency received Royal Regal’s

application for a sewer extension permit.

On June 20, 1983,

the

Agency denied the permits.

Two

days later, on June 22, 1983, the

Agency issued to Rushville a notice of pending restricted status

and a week later, on June 29, 1983, the Agency placed Rushville

on restricted status because of the

WWTP’s

175

hydraulic over-

load,

(Agency Rec.

3).

Royal Regal,

from the fall of 1979, through the issuance of

the restricted status spent Rout_of_pocketu at least $56,000 out

of a total of about $90,000 overall on real estate and project

development.

(Pet.

2,

Supplemental, Attach.

3.)

Of the remainder

the record is unclear as to

how

much of the sums for projects

payed for after restricted status were for projects committed to

earlier.

Royal Regal had hoped to start the project construction by

November 15, 1983, but now anticipates start—up and completion

dates of April 1, 1984 and September 1, 1984 respectively with

immediate occupancy following

(Supplemental, 1).

The 24 unit complex, made up of five buildings, is expected

to house 60 people, resulting in no more than a 1

increase in

flow and 2

increase in population loading.

The daily

SOD

and

Suspended Solids discharged to the receiving stream are estimated

to increase by 1

and 2.4

respectively (Supplemental 2,3).

Regarding surface runoff, Rushville asserted that the project

site is close enough to road ditches with sufficient capacity to

56-103

---

handle

the

addit~o~i

t

tao~f

~cri t

inpe

vious

a:eas

Rushvilie

is cleaning the ditches and Lis~aIlirg

:arger culverts~

(Supple-

mental,

2)~

A Farmer~Hone kdm~rt~xu~io

~ritI1~)

loan ~ili he used

to

retire

inteiin

c

i~

a

~i~n

s

2 a

~

U

I control re thai

rates

and

ceupa

t

e

o

J~i~

y

~

o~

ncome

range

(Supple-

mental

2)~

The

Petition

mu

itsin

that

nffectiv~

compliance

alternativn~

a

~e net

ivailihU,

~$he~e

U

~o

ava~ able

space

for

a

seepage

fieU

o~ other

ptivate

disp

sal

~~sten.

Delay

of

the

project

until

the

great

pro:ect

is

corapUtei

and

restricted

status

is ended wou~dresult in the loss of the present FmHA loan

committment

and economic hardship severe enough to lead to possible

bankrupt~cy (Pet.

1,

Supplemental

2,

3j.

Corpliance could be

achieve

hI ciangUg

Lhe size of the ~uiid~ngn aid runnUg

in4iv~ cal

~ervicu

~nes

in

a mana~r

LC

U) I

~i~ni

tIe

no

constructi)fl

permit

required”

prov~ion~ of

Section

~09~202

(h),(2)

if

he single building discharge

1’

less

than

~300g/day.

However,

thrs would add ne~construction end en3ineering costs

(Pet,

4),

The Agency Joes rut disnute ko3ai RegaUs

effective alter-

natives

The Agency a3rees that because a substantial portion

of Royal RejulU cusLa were incurred he~orethe impostion of

restricted sta~ur, Poyal

Raccal vould suffe~:arh~traryor unreason-

able haras~U

1 u A~cn

~

co~uditin

n~arecunm~ndedgrant ot

variauc~ a

exl~Jio

of

hI

~

~

beyond the

24 unit

complex

an

b

~nued

i

ticiuot~o.

y

I

hvu

a

an the sewer

and W~TP

a

c

pjraoirg ~tojr

i

a&

ribed

i

paragraph

6

of

the Petition

The Ajan

and

te Pe~rtioner

cc rue

t

~

Urial

f variance

would

impose s~a hi iary or u~urcasrat

a U d~uipou doyaJ

iegal~

Not o~Jyaid Royal Aega~ iuuur

large expences before the imposition

of Restricted Status

but, starting in 1980, naintained “progress

of project

cnn~actwith Rushville

~hose

ity

ourcil

in 1980

and 1)8~indicat~ ~heir belief that the pro~ec~could be connected

because the adeU Iad

would net ca~s~tie NPDF

1ermit interim

limits to be c~ce3uJane because

thu Ae

a

Ia

re~enly issued

a Permit fur

a o ~er apaYtffe~tcorpUx

‘Pet

8

Under tIes

circurretances,

it

as

n

1 miens

ualle

for Royal

Regal

o

t~i

U

teak iith the i~gc

y

no

c.

e

,

ace Board

is

unwilliug to

a

cv

~ny adUt:onal

lea

~ U

a

~t

as Iadlv

degraded

is

as

3eacr hue ~n J~rs a~e ~

cC

a~

ormitien~

on the part of the Petitioners

to take sc

a steps

to keep the

environirentai Sara ~o a minimum,

Ihe Board does not favor

allowing even a small

additional

load

—

and in this case the

58~iO4

---

additional

~cax.~

~o

~n

~i

rt. basement flooding

occurs (Cit~

of

~~io

,

~ B 8O~22

)~

The added problems

of basement

flood~na~xo

~

~cc

L~OW,

the bypasses from the

sanitary

seweus

mt

sto~.

.

tu~~y~asses into the receiving

streams,

a

WW’P elf icn

~ a1

v

tha~needs improvement,

and

deteriorated s~wer~,

at ~z paint an unacceptable picture

of existing or pot~rt~~J

ti

B cnvlronmental

damage.

The Boar

i

-aid

and this record does

not

explair, why res

r

~ed

~

a~not impsed by the Agency

until

eleven years after th~

)aut

ent on continuous hydraulic

and organic cJsrl~

i-~

~r

si~

t

ra’or3 indi.ra~es~at least

one

per~itwas ~sued

durThg tnit

t

ne.

~eqerthe1ess, the Board

must take

this

situation

as

it

Lrds

~t.

While

the

Board

recognizes

Rashville~s

efforts

to

alleviate

the

problems,

more

must be

done

before

~he

nsw

Facility

Plan

15

implemented

sometime

in the future if

~.

is

to

g~a1Lt a

vaira

ice

:hat

allows

additional

organic

ar3

i

loau~nj

i.

a

y

t.

~i

at

is

already

grossly

n’

i~a

y cverlca~eB

s

y

~

n

an

is

backinj

up

into

basements

Unfor

rats

y

tie

ecor3

o

dfi

en-

in

data

necessary

for

the

BcaiB

t

uu

~tiu

a

q:ant

f

ariancc

it

a

manner

that

would

appropriaL;

j

aic

~

~1~t

i.

~un~iders

an

unacceptable

environmental

ann

hcaltLi

irpact

c~

alanced

agalnst

the

hardship.

For ~xa~le

ie ~ec

~Bu~e~nr- contain the location or

layout

of

the

arec

tth

CCvCI

Ia

out

the

SSES

data

containing

a

breakdol

~

~c d

n~anl l~t. a ~f

he in~i1tration/inf1ow

reductioi

~-q

r~ that

at

least

sone

of

the defects

-

I

c

r

e

near

future.

Nor

does

he

:c~

~e

t

‘

op

~oi

installing

temporary

holding

tanks

fit

tic.

pTYie

t

irsuharge

(See

Clem

Juris

and

ç4~1

of

Sandwich

v

Ln~rnroimeLtalP~-otect1onAg,,,ency,

PCB

No.

8O~68,

39

PCB

420,

~ept~wcer

I

3tO,.

In

denying

this

variance,

the

Board

3rants

leave

to

refile

and,

upon

receipt

t

tIc.

letitlon,

the

Board

will

expedite

its

consider-

ation

and

requi~t

the

Agency

to

expedite

Its

recommendation.

This

Opi

ion

corstitutes

thc.

BoardL~ findings

of

fact

and

conclusions

o;

law

ir

th’’

an

ax.

1.

Petiti

usia

no

-y

‘n

1u3

i

c~fld

I iyal

Regal

Pro~ects

are

hereby

denied

a

var1a~cc. ‘ror

3

1

1

~da~

Cone

309,241

(a,.

IT

IS

SO

ORDERnD.

---

Board

Member

J

T~. Meyer

dissented

Ir

Chriatan

1.

Moffett,

Clerk of

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board.

hereby

certify

that

the

above

Opinion

and

Order

were

adopted

on

the

~

dai’

of

1084

by

a

vot.e

of

,

,

-~

Ill

inionn

Pollution

Control

Board