01-005s110200

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November 2, 2000

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITION OF THE CITY OF SYCAMORE FOR AN

ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE

304.121 AND 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 306.305(b)

)

AS 01-5

(Adjusted Standard - Water)

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by N.J. Melas):

On September 25, 2000, the City of Sycamore (Sycamore) filed this petition for an adjusted standard

pursuant to Section 28.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (Act). 415 ILCS 5/28.1 (1998). Sycamore

requests that the Board grant an adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.121 and 306.305(b). Section

304.121 of the Board’s regulations applies to bacteria in the effluent from Sycamore’s waste water treatment

plant (WWTP), and Section 306.305(b) applies to treatment of Sycamore’s stormwater discharges and WWTP

bypasses. Sycamore is located in DeKalb County, Illinois. The WWTP discharges into the Kishwaukee River

(Kishwaukee). The WWTP includes an excess flow treatment facility (EFTF). The EFTF does not have

disinfection. In applying for an adjusted standard, Sycamore seeks to avoid the requirement to install a

disinfection system for the EFTF. Pet. at 1-3.

NOTICE AND HEARING

Section 28.1 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/28.1 (1998)) and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 106.711 require publication of a

notice of an adjusted standard proceeding in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the

petitioner’s activity. The notice must be published within 14 days of the filing of the petition. As required by

the 35 Ill. Adm. Code 712, Sycamore filed a certificate of publication with the Board on October 20, 2000,

indicating that notice of the petition was published in

The Daily Chronicle

on October 6, 2000.

The Board finds that the notice meets the requirements of Section 28.1 of the Act and 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 106.711 and 106.712.

PROOF AND INFORMATIONAL SUFFICIENCY

Although the notice is proper, the Board finds that the petition has not adequately addressed certain

proof required by Section 28.1(c) of the Act and certain information sufficiency requirements required by the

Board’s rules at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 106.705. Specifically the petition fails to provide:

Factors relating to the petitioner that are substantially and significantly different from the

factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general regulation applicable to that

petitioner. 415 ILCS 5/28.1(c)(1) (1998). These factors are not specifically addressed in the

petition.

Adequate proof that the requested standard will not result in environmental or health effects

substantially and significantly more adverse than the effects considered by the Board in

adopting the rule of general applicability. 415 ILCS 5/28.1(c)(3) (1998).

Similarly, the petition fails to provide the quantitative and qualitative impact of the

petitioner's activity on the environment, with and without the adjusted standard, including

(a) cross-media impacts concerning environmental subject areas other than those addressed

by the regulation of general applicability and the proposed adjusted standard; and (b) the

nature of emissions, discharges or releases. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 106.705(g).

Fecal coliforms/bacteria

Sycamore states it has received an exemption from disinfection treatment for its dry

weather flows from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) pursuant

to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.121(b). Pet. at 6. This exemption requires Sycamore to

demonstrate the character of the receiving waters and that its discharge will not

cause downstream waters to exceed applicable fecal coliform water quality

standards. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.209.

Receiving waters are exempt from the 200 coliforms/100 mL water quality standard

at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.209 if the Agency (under its National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permit granting authority) determines the receiving

waters are considered unable to support primary contact uses because of physical,

hydrologic or geographic configuration and are located in areas unlikely to be

frequented by the public on a routine basis.

Sycamore states that the only recreational use of the East Branch of the Kishwaukee

is for fishing (Pet. at 8-9) but then states that there is “no recreational contact in the

receiving stream.” Pet. at 10. Sycamore must provide clarification on this point, as

there appears to be confusion regarding the Kishwaukee’s ability to support

primary conduct. Fishing may indicate boating and wading which pose a concern

for human health. In order to clarify any confusion, Sycamore must conduct a

survey to determine the use of the receiving stream and the degree of human

exposure to bacteria. Sycamore must be more specific in describing the fishing,

including the frequency of fishing, the number of persons engaged in fishing, and

the types of fish caught. Sycamore should also describe other activities that might

be affected by the water quality in the Kishwaukee.

Since Sycamore claims that the Agency has already exempted Sycamore’s dry

weather flows from the disinfection requirements of 304.121, the Agency apparently

considered the Kishwaukee segment downstream of the WWTP not protected for

primary contact use. Therefore, Sycamore states there are no water quality

standards for fecal coliform in the Kishwaukee downstream of the WWTP.

Sycamore must provide proof (either by submitting its NPDES permit or other

documentation) that there are no fecal coliform water quality standards for this

stretch of the Kishwaukee.

Sycamore claims that samples taken upstream of the WWTP and at a sampling

point 1.5 miles

downstream of the WWTP do not generally indicate an increase in

fecal coliform levels during the same storm events. Pet. at 10, Exh. 1. However, the

data shows that fecal coliform counts in the EFTF effluent can be relatively high, as

much as 3 to 21 times higher than fecal coliform counts in water samples taken

upstream of the WWTP.

Id.

Therefore, Sycamore must provide fecal coliform

counts between the WWTP and the sampling point 1.5 miles downstream.

Sycamore states that there are no water quality standards for fecal coliform along

“that segment” of the Kishwaukee River. Pet. at 10. It is unclear where “that

segment” begins and ends. Fecal coliform analysis is provided for the effluent,

Martin’s Ditch, and the East Branch of the Kishwaukee, but no data is provided for

the receiving waters further downstream that have water quality standards for fecal

coliform. To demonstrate that the adjusted standard will not have a negative

impact on the receiving waters further downstream where water quality standards

are applicable, Sycamore must clarify what portion of the receiving stream is

exempt from the water quality standards for fecal coliform and provide fecal

coliform analysis for waters immediately downstream where water quality

standards are applicable.

Disinfection

Sycamore must submit scientific data or biological studies to support its conclusion

that a disinfection system for the EFTF would have a negative impact on aquatic

life. The study or data must predict the impact of a chlorine residual in the effluent

from the EFTF. The studies or data must compare the health of aquatic life during

normal plant operation to overflow events.

Whether the regulation of general applicability was promulgated to implement the

requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA) or the NPDES. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 106.705(b).

Although there are no Federal standards for disinfection of wastewater discharge from

combined sewer overflows (CSO), the regulation of general applicability (35 Ill. Adm. Code

304.121) was promulgated to implement the requirements of the CWA and NPDES. Fecal

coliforms are identified as “conventional pollutants” under the CWA at 33 U.S.C. § 1314(a)(4)

(1998).

In addition, Sycamore must indicate if its NPDES permit requires completion and

implementation of a long-term CSO control plan (plan) as required under the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency’s CSO Control Policy (policy). The policy’s goal is to

bring CSOs into full compliance with the CWA. See 59 Fed. Reg. 18,688 (1994). If Sycamore

is completing or implementing a plan, Sycamore must indicate how the control plan affects

its petition. If Sycamore is not subject to a plan in its NPDES permit, the Agency must

indicate why. (See item 5d.)

A description of the nature of the petitioner's activity which is the subject of the proposed

adjusted standard, including the location of and area affected by the petitioner's activity,

number of persons employed by the petitioner's facility, age of that facility, relevant

pollution control equipment already in use, and the qualitative and quantitative nature of

emissions, discharges or releases currently generated by the petitioner's activity. 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 106.705(d). Sycamore’s petition states that area affected is the East Branch of the

Kishwaukee. Sycamore must change this to indicate that the area affected is actually the

East Branch of the South Branch of the Kishwaukee. Sycamore must also indicate the age of

the WWTP.

A complete description of the efforts which would be necessary if petitioner were to comply

with the regulation of general applicability. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 106.705(e). Sycamore only

provides one compliance alternative and corresponding cost estimate. Sycamore must

provide a cost/feasibility analysis for the following alternatives:

Separating storm sewers from the sanitary sewer system on a selective basis by

making system upgrades where feasible and economical, by requiring new

developments to install separate sewer systems or stormwater retention, and by

utilizing a program of stormwater permit fees to address stormwater management

needs for Sycamore’s infrastructure.

Identifying existing large commercial/industrial/residential developments that

contribute heavily to stormwater runoff, and evaluating the feasibility of requiring

developers to construct stormwater retention ponds to reduce the rate of flow to the

WWTP. Obviously, such an option is only viable where there is sufficient space at a

development for construction of a detention pond.

Using sodium hypochlorite instead of chlorine for disinfection. Sodium

hypochlorite would avoid the safety concerns of storing chlorine incylinders.

Sycamore also must provide information on construction of a climate-controlled

storage facility to maintain the useful life of sodium hypochlorite.

Developing or implementing a long term CSO Control Plan consistent with USEPA

policy. (See item 3.)

Sycamore must provide corresponding costs, overall capital costs, and annualized capital

and operating costs for each compliance alternative. If Sycamore determines that a

compliance alternative is technologically unfeasible and does not warrant a cost analysis, it

must provide an adequate explanation of the technological barriers.

How the petitioner seeks to justify the proposed adjusted standard. 35 Ill. Adm. Code

106.705(h). In order for the Board to consider justification, Sycamore must provide the

information that the Board has requested above.

CONCLUSION

The Board therefore directs petitioner to address the information requirements of Section 28.1 of the

Act and Section 106.705 of the Board’s rules in an amended petition. The amended petition must be filed

with the Board by January 5, 2001, or it will be dismissed.

If petitioner files the amended petition by January 5, 2001, the Board will accept this matter for

hearing. The Agency shall file a response to the amended petition within 30 days after it is filed with the

Board. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 106.714(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that the above order

was adopted on the 2nd day of November 2000 by a vote of 7-0.

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board