ILLtNOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 4,
1982
CITY
OL~
ST. CHARLES,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
V.
)
PCB 81—131
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
(WtNION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J. Anderson):
This matter comes before the
Board
on the petition for
variance of the City of St.
Charles (City)
filed
August 19,
1982
as amended October 5, 1981.
The City seeks variance from 602(b),
602(c)(1—2) and 602(d)(1) of Chapter 3:
Water Pollution con-
cerning sanitary sewer overflows and treatment plant bypasses.
On December 11,
1981, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
filed
its
Recommendation
in
support
of
grant
of
variance
with
conditions.
The
City
filed
a
Response
December
21,
1981,
to
which
the
Agency
replied
January
4,
1982.
On
January
6,
the
City
moved
to
amend
its
Response,
which
motion
is
hereby
granted.
The
Agency
filed
comments
to
this
response
on
January
20,
1982.
Hearing
was
waived
and
none
has
been
held.
The
City
of
St.
Charles,
population
17,500,
is
located
in
Eane and DuPage Counties.
The City
owns
and
operates
a
wastewater
treatment plant discharging an average 3.87 million gallons per
day (MGD) of effluent into the Fox River.
Since plant upgrading
in 1975,
the plant’s hydraulic capacity has been a design average
of
8.0 mgd and a design maximum of 20.0 mgd.
The tributary sewer
system
is
a
separate
sanitary
and
storm
sewer
system.
As of 1980,
the
sanitary system consisted of over of 460,000 linear feet of
sewer line with over 1800 manholes.
There is one treatment plant bypass (Overflow #1)
located at
the
Riverside
pump
station
which
is
operated
by
a
manual
gate
valve.
The
Agency
estimates
the
possible
bypass
from
this
point
as
being
5.9 mgd in the event of a one—year storm, and 9.2 mgd in
the
event
of
a
five—year
storm.
Five overflow points currently exist in the sanitary sewer
line, a sixth (Overflow #3) having recently been eliminated.
Possible overflows from these points are estimated by the Agency,
in the event of one-year and five—year storms respectively, to be?
45—277
Overflow
#2
(automatic gravity overflow)
1,2
mgd,
1,5
rngd;
Overflows
#4
(manual
gate,
gravity overflow) and S
(automatic
gravity overflow from
#4)
(together)
1.3 mgd, 3,6
rngd;
Overflow
#6
(submersible pump)
0,6 mgd,
0,8 mgd; Overflow #7
(automatic
gravity overflow)
2,5 mgd, 3,1 mqd.
The Agency, on March 10,
197R
placed
on Restricted Status the
portions of the sanitary
sewer system and its tributaries
having
these
6 overflows.
The City states
that,
due to heavy rainfall, by—pass has
occurred at one or more
locations
on 14 separate occasions during
the calendar year 1981.
Written reports
to the Agency reveal
that during
5 occasions between May
29, 1981 and August
3,
1981,
eCfluent bypassed the treatment plant from Overflow #1 for over
44
hours.
No data has been included concerning duration of sani-
tary sower overflow events,
perhaps because
the sanitary sewer
overflows are reported by the City verbally with the Agency’s
consent.
Environmental
Impact
All hut one of the overflow points discharge directly to the
Fox River,
The Agency reports that
it operates a water quality
monitoring station about 15 miles downstream from the City of
~t. Charles.
While the fecal coliform count at this station was
in excess of water quality standards from December,
1977 to
September,
1979, the high fecal
coliforin levels cannot he solely
attributed to the City’s bypasses and overflows,
as Geneva,
Batavia,
and Aurora also discharge into this stream segment.
Biological
samples collected in 1975 at three stations near the
City showed
a sample of the Fox to he “semi~polluted”at
a station
downstream of Overflows
3,
4,
5 and
7 hut 0,5
mile upstream of the
plant, while samples at two stations 0,4 and 2,5 miles downstream
received “unbalanced” classifications,
(These classifications arc
based upon diversity of aquatic organisms.)
The City asks the Board to take notice of
its findings
in three variance cases,
Rossetter et
al
v.
IEPA,
PCB 78—147
November
2,
1978);
Shodeenv._IEPA,
PCB
78—173
(November
2,
1978)
and Wildrose CorR.
et al.
v.
IEPA,
PCB 78-253
(March
1,
1979).
In each case, variance from the sewer system’s restricted status
was granted after
a finding that minimal environmental
impact
would result from increased sanitary sewer overflows.
Primary
reliance was placed
on
a computer modeling study of the City’s
wastewater bypasses
prepared by RJN Environmental
Associates,
Inc.
Rule 602(b) expressly prohibits overflows from sanitary
sewers.
In 1977,
the City contracted for an infiltration/inflow
analysis of
its system,
with
the aid of Step
1 funding under
the federal construction
grant
program.
Agency review of the
analysis caused the City’s
sewer system to be placed on
restricted
status March 10,
1978.
4S—27~
3
The City has received Steps 2-3 funding for rehabilitation
of its sewer system, and for modification of the Riverside Pumping
Station.
According to the grant’s construction schedule, all work
is to be completed by October,
1983 with start-up to be made
November, 1983
(Pet.
6,
Hit.
A).
The City
calculates that its share of the total cost for work
done under Steps 1,
2,
and
3 will be in excess of $1,400,000.
In
addition to participation in the construction grant program, the
city has engaged in a vigorous enforcement program to
eliminate
inflow
from
sump
pumps,
etc.
As of
May,
1981 all
but
75
of
927
illegal connections
had been
eliminated.
The
Agency
recommends
that
variance
from
Rule
602(b)
be
granted,
conditioned
on
compliance
with
grant
conditions.
The
Board
finds
thAt
denial of variance would
Spose
an
arbitrary
or
unreasonable
hardship.
The
threat
to
health
from
basement
backups
which
would
be
caused
by
immediate
elimination
of the sanitary sewer overflow points,
as well as the city’s
demonstrated
and
sizeable
commitment
to
their
expeditious
com—
piLiance, overbalances the possible minimal environmental benefit
to the Fox River
which
could conceivably result should variance
be denied.
Variance from Rule 602(b) is accordingly granted until
November, 1983.
However, the Board wishes it to be clearly understood that
this variance does not constitute a de facto lifting of restricted
status from the sewer system.
The iEiiU~?this variance is only
to shield the City from enforcement for violations of Rule 602(b).
It is not intended to allow for Agency issuance of sewer operation
permits until either a) an applicant has been granted variance, or
b) the sewer system has been removed from restricted status.
Treatment Plant Bypass and Rules 602(c) and (dl
Rule 602(c)(1) requires,
in pertinent part, sufficient
treatment of treatment plant bypasses of first flush storm flows
to neet effluent standards.
Rule 602(c)(2) requires bypasses of
additional flows of not less than 10 times dry weather
flow
to
receive at least primary treatment and disinfection.
Rule 602(d)
(1)
specifies the date for compliance with Rule 602(c).
As noted previously, grant funding has been received for
rehabilitation of the Riverside
pump
station,
so that much of the
routine bypassing at this point should be eliminated by November,
1983.
However, the City’s contemporaneous application for funds
to build facilities necessary to treat non—routine bypasses
was
not granted.
Federal grant funds for construction of such facilities are
agreed by the parties to be unavailable.
On September 18,
1981,
the City was awarded a $99,000 grant for the design of excess
45—279
4
flow facilities
~
S’3.1
is
tor design and installation of a belt
filter press.
Or
u~pS
be.- ‘3
t~R1 the Agency advised the City
that state
gnct
Cu4ds
a”-e available hr design and construction
of excess flow factlitiea and a belt fflter press.
The
City a
~1
eves
s~tiP Ca- teat full cc*m~ptiance
with
Rules 602(c—d) on
-
‘.
oigh
coastruction of excess flow facilities.
It states that
it
u’
‘ran
ascistance
ic will have insufficient
funds for such conatr.
on, particularly ainc.e the sewer relief
projects will neces°atatenon reimbursea.,le expenditures of
$1,112,000.
The City therefore requests that variance be granted,
and that it be conditioned on the
Agency’s
decision to provide a
state
grant for 75
of grant eligible costs.
The
Agency
has
stated
that
it
intends
to
provide
such
a
grant,
and
recommends
that
variance
be
granted
conditioned
on
the
City’s
active
pursuit
of
grant
funding
and
expeditious
facility
construction.
However,
in the event
it
cannot
make
grant
funds
available, the Agency suggests that the variance terminate 3 months
after its written notification of this fact to the City (Reply at
2).
The
City
objects
to
inclision
of the latter condition,
largely on the basis that it believes
it
would be unfair of the
Agency to fund less thai’ 75
of the excess flow facilities’
estimated cost of $1,891,000.
In essence,
the
Board is being
requested to force the Agercy to provide the city a grant for
an amount
certain.
The Board finds that grant of variance from Rules 602(c—d)
is necessary to avoid imposition of an arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship,
given
the
ninimal
environmental
impact
to
be
caused
by
delay
in
compliance
under
these
circumstances.
However,
the
~oard
declines
to
exercise
any
authority
it
may
have
to
commit
the
Agency
to
provision
of
a
state
grant;
e~igent circumstances
may
necessitate a different allocation of scarce grant funds.
The
Board will therefore include the Agency’s suggested termination
condition.
The Board wishes to remind the City that it
may
seek
variance
from
this Order of the Board if changed conditions cause
the City to believe additional relief is necessary.
This Opinion constitutes the Board findings of facts and
conclusions of law
it
this ratter.
ORDER
1.
Petitioner
the City of St. Charles is hereby granted
variance from Rule
6 2 ol
as
.t relates to
its sanitary sewer
bypasses, sutlect
tr
the tollowing conditions.
a
t.ts
‘a.ietce
shall terminate
December t,
1983.
45-280
5
b)
:
63
-
aonply with the Project
Schedule
out... 1C
3
“
art Nc.
C—172320—02.
2.
The Cit4
is hereby ranted variance from Rules 602(c)
(1-2) and 602(d)(1
as
he~
relate to its treatment plant bypass,
subject to the follcnrg covtd~tions
a)
WitF_r
3
da~ of
the
date
of
this
Order,
the
City
shall
apply
‘~
tFe
A;ency for a state grant for 75
of the grant eligible costs of an excess flow facility as
such costs were defined by the Agency to the City pursuant
to a letter
.
oee.eibar
23,
1981, or alternatively for
such greater anoint as
may
be grant eligible.
b)
The cot tact
s)
for construction of an excess
flow facility s1a11 be awarded on or before July 1, 1984.
However,
in U, eve’tt that a state grant is awarded after
January
1,
iqs
..nstnction
contracts
shall
be
awarded
within
7
mrth~
C
the date of the award
of
the
state
grant.
c)
Cot. truct’on of the excess flo’; facility shall
be completed
i
bef’or~
De..ember
1, 1)84.
However,
in
the event that a flate grint is awarded a~!terJanuary 1,
1984, construction .~ials
as
completed
within
11
months
of
the date of the award of the state grant.
d)
This variance shall in no event terminate
later than Februa..y 1, 3997
In the
event
that the City
receives written rotification from the Agency that the
City will not be awarded a state grant as described in
a) above, this variance shall terminate 90 days from the
‘late of such writter notification.
3.
within V
‘~‘so’! the date of this Order, the City
shall execute and forwarc. -o the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency, Compliance Assurarce Unit, Water Pollution Control Unit,
2200 thurchill Road
Springfield, IL
62706, an executed Certifi-
cation of Acceptance
aid
Pgreement to be bound by all conditions
of the variance
The
fc rty five day period
herein
shall
be
held
in
abeyance for an4
period
this matter is beinq appealed.
The
form
of
said
cer
ifica
in
•ha’J
be
as
followst
tERTIFICATION
I,
(We),
—-
——
____
____—-
,
having read
the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in PCB 81—131,
dated
——
—
—
____
,
understand and accept the
said Order realizing
t
.it
cacn acceptance renders all terms and
conditions thereto tirdi .g and er.forceable.
Petitioner
4-281
6
13y~
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Christan L~Moffett,
Clerk of
the
Illinois Pollution
Control Board, he~bycertify
that
the above Opinion and Order was
adopted o~theS
day
of
~
1982 by a
Illinois Pollution
:rol Board
4
5~-282