ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June 13,

1985

IN

RE:

 SITE—SPECIFIC

RULEMAKING FOR THE

)

 R84—30

CITY OF EAST PEORIA

PROPOSED RULE

 FIRST ~13TICE

OPINION AND ORDER OF THL~

BOARD

 (by B.

 Forcade):

On July 16,

 1985,

 the City of East Peoria (“East Peoria”)

filed

 a petition

 for sit.e~specificrulemaking with the Board.

East Peoria’s Sewage

 Tre.abnent Plant No.

1

 (“the facility”)

presently discharges

 its effluent to the Illinois River.

 As part

of a facility improvement~. program, East Peoria would like to

change

the

 location of their discharge point to a small waterway

adjacent

 to the Illinois River, known as Ditch

A.

 Ditch A joins

another

 small waterway, known as the Main Ditch.

 Existing

stormwater runoff

 in these waterways

 is pumped over

 a levee

to

the Illinois River,

 Effluent limitations applicable

to

discharges to Ditch A are more restrictive than

 to discharges

to

the Illinois River.

 Therefore, East Peoria would have to

substantially improve the present quality of their effluent to

discharge

 to the new location in compliance with Board

regulations.

 Because East Peoria believes that discharging the

present quality effluent to Ditch A would improve environmental

quality

 in the area,

 they are seeking

 a regulatory change

to

allow such action.

Hearing was held

in

this

matter

 on September

 10, 1984.

The

Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources filed a

“Negative Declaration”

 of economic impact

 in this matter on

November 29,

 1984.

 The Economic Technical Advisory Committee

concurred in that determination on January 23, 1985.

 On April

9,

1985,

 the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (‘~Agency”)

recommended that the Board deny East Peoria’s request due

to

inadequate

 factual justification.

 On May 2,

 1985, East Peoria

filed

 a reply to the Agency recommendation.

All pending motions

 to file out of time are granted.

 While

the Board was not able

 to immediately grant East Peoria’s May 2,

1985, Motion

 for Expedited Ruling,

 it has attempted to be

responsive to those concerns.

East Peoria

 is located

 in Tazewell County, adjacent to the

Illinois River.

 The facility

 is located adjacent to Ditch A,

which

 is parallel

 to and approximately 1600 feet southeast of

the

Illinois River.

 Present1y~East Peoria discharges by underground

pipe to the Illinois River0

 East Peoria

is

 in the process of

upgrading the facility~~2~fter the upgrading

 is completed,

the

64-447

—2—

design average flow will be 4.22 million gallons per day

 (MGD),

with peak design flow of 8.44 MGD, consisting primarily of

treated sanitary sewage from East Peoria.

East Peoria currently pumps

 their effluent

 to the Illinois

River using one pump rated at 4500 gallons per minute with an

appropriate head pressure.

 Because

 the system head conditions

are low,

 the pump must be

 throttled to operate properly.

 With

the new facility improvements,

 this pump will be replaced.

Throughout ~his proceeding,

 it has been clear

 that East

Peoria

 is capable and willing

 to make the planned facility

improvements while continuing

 to discharge

 to the Illinois

River.

 No issue of

 technological infeasibility or economic

hardship

 is presented.

 However, East Peoria believes

it

is

desirable, environmentally and economically,

 to allow the

facility

 to discharge the present quality of effluent to Ditch

A.

 East Peoria seeks relief from the effluent limitation of

35

 Ill.

 Adm. Code 304.120(c), which

 sets maximum contaminant levels

at

 10 mg/i

 of BOD and

 12 mg/i of suspended solids

 to waterways

such as Ditch A, where

 the dilution ratio

 is less than five to

one.

East Peoria seeks

 to have

 its discharges

 to Ditch A

regulated at

 20 mg/l BOD and 25 mg/i

 of suspended solids,

the

same limitations that presently apply under Section 304.120(b)

to

the facility’s discharges

 to the Illinois River.

 While East

Peoria would

 be able to discharge

 to Ditch A without regulatory

relief,

 if the facility were upgraded

 to meet the more stringent

effluent requirements of 10/12,

 the cost of facility upgrading

is

quite high and East Peoria does not wish

 to pursue this option.

East Peoria has provided economic evaluations

 for the two

preferred

 alternatives.

 Alternative No.

 1 involves facility

upgrading with continued discharge

 to the Illinois River.

 This

option would require no relief from Board regulations.

Alternative No.

 2 involves facility upgrading and discharge

to

Ditch A at effluent limitations

 of 20/25.

 This option would

require Board regulatory action.

 After

 elimination of the common

costs

 to both proposals, and stating the remaining costs

 in terms

of present worth cost and equivalent uniform annual cost the

differences are most clearly seen.

Alternative No,

 1 has

 a present worth cost of $357,624 with

an equivalent annual cost of $36,764.

 Alternative No,

 2 has a

present worth

 cost of $213,106 with an equivalent uniform annual

cost of $21,907,

 Thus,

 if East Peoria

is

granted the regulatory

relief

 it seeks, total savings amount

 to $144,518,

 or about

$15,850 per year

 (Pet,, pp.

 4—5).

 East Peoria has recently

adjusted

the

 sewer

 use rate for its customers,

 to reflect the

$8.1 million treatment plant and sewer upgrading,

 to $1.75 per

thousand gallons

 That rate will not be affected by whichever

discharge option is selected,

 However, gross savings

 to the

system of over $15F000 per year are anticipated

 if discharge

to

64-448

—3—

Ditch A is approved

(R.

 36—38).

 In view of the minimal cost

differential of

 the two options,

 both well within East Peoria’s

financial capability, and ~he fact that

 hoth are clearly

:ochnically feasih~o,the ~3oardmust focus

on the environmental

~:~cts

 on the smoUc~rwnter’~iay

of the two alternatives.

The T-shaped

waterway

 into ‘ñich 3ast Peoria seeks

to

rlthcharge consists of )itch A (~‘hich is ~everal thousand feet

lon’j, approximately fo~’:yfeet wide, and approximately 2—3 feet

dee~)narallol

 to the Illinois River

and

 the Main Ditch (which

is

1,250 foot from the

C

 fluence

with Ditch

to

its

termination

ndjaoent

 to the Illinois River,

 approximately

forty feet wide and

2—3 feet deep).

 ~oth are part of

 a man—made

n:i~!~

 of drainage

ditches to co~*~ctsurface ‘iater

 runoff from appro~imately

1,050

acres

and

 convs~~

it

 to a

~roing

station

which

pumps

the

stormwnter

 into the

Illinoth

 Th7et.

The

l~d

adjacent

~)ttth

and

Main

Ditch

the

area

concern

 o’i~e-1hy

the

Otherpiliar

Tractor

Company

and

zoned

for

manufa~turiaq.

Mush

the

 land

low

marshy—type

area

with

 large areas of

~ondsd

~iater,

There

are

currently

rio

existing

pro~osed develo~ments

for

the

area.

There

one

residence

the

area,

maintained

the

Levee

District

for

the

Levee

Pump

operator.

the

discharge

point

changed,

 this

residence

would

abolisho~

and

other

arrangements

for

pump

maintenance

would

made

(Pet.,

~x.

2).

East

Peoria

urges

that

switching

 the discharge to Ditch A

will

have

several

beneficial

envirohmental

impacts:

will

reduce

the

potential

for

freezing

winter

and

reduce

the

omount

aquatic

die—off.

Plant

effluent

will

reduce

the

high

sus-ended

 sol~s

concentrations

 in the ditch.

Plant

 effluent

will

increase

the

dissol7e3

oxygen

concentration

 in the ditch.

4.

 Plant effluent wii~’. incre~.se the

flows in

the

ditch

which will

imorove

scouring,

reduce

stagnation

and

reduce algal growth.

To support

 these contentions, East Peoria has provided

certain

chemical analyses of

plant effluent, Ditch A and Main

Ditch

ambient water

 cjualtty

and

a biological evaluation of the

ditches.

The Board notes that while information

on existing effluent

quality

 is hel~fuito the Board,

it

 is of limited utility

in this

 t Po.~

 ~ai~

 to substantially expand and

improve

its

 sewage collection and treatment facility.

Consequently~

it

has

not

represented

the

 Board

 that

the

character

 of the future effluent to Ditch A

would be identical

to

existing effluent to the Illinois River.

~4,449~,

—4—

Chemical analyses

 of Ditch A and Main Ditch

 (Ex.

2,

p.

 4—5)

for several samplings in August of

 1984,

 show average

concentration.s

 for dissolved oxygen of below 5.0 mg/i,

for

ammonia nitrogen

 of 0.95 mg/i,

for

7.0,

for

BOD

17.9

mg/l,

 and for suspended solids

30.9

mg/i.

The

biological

evaluation observed

 carp, sunfish, turtles and muskrat,

 as well

as

 floating algal masses.

 The biologist concluded that the ditch

is too shallow

 to support aquatic fauna other than those adapted

to low oxygen,

 that stagnant or near stagnant conditions

are

common throughout the summer,

 and the ditch

 is likely to freeze

from top to bottom

 in most areas during

 the winter discouraging

establishment

of:fish

populations

requiring

high

levels

dissolved oxygen.

 The biologist did not list any adverse effects

ôn.aquatic organisms expected from effluent discharges

 (Ex.

2,

App. B).

The

Agency

filed

comments

recommending

that

the

Board

deny

the

 request for site—specific rule citing inadequate information

to establish lack of environmental harm and establish that water

quality standards will not be violated.

 The Board agrees with

the Agency that the record on water quality and environmental

conditions

 in the proposed discharge area

 is exceedingly thin.

Not only are

 few data presented, but their

 collection over

a

short period and

 at the height of the summer season raises

serious question. regarding

 their representativeness.

 Only in the

truly exceptional case could the Board give weight

 to data which

do not more

 fully characterize long—term ambient conditions

in

the receiving waterway.

Despite the paucity of the record,

 the Board must focus on

what facts do exist here,

 in light

 of what relief

 is being

requested.

 First,

 the Board

 notes that East Peoria

 is not

requesting relief from any water quality standards applicable

to

the requested discharge area,

The

 record before

 the Board would

not support such relief.

 East Peoria appears

 to be willing

to

presume

 it will not violate water quality standards and to bear

the consequences

 should that presumption prove wrong.

Likewise, East Peoria has failed

 to demonstrate that there

will be no adverse environmental impact from granting the

requested relief.

 However, East Peoria has demonstrated that

some aspects of the change will be environmentally beneficial,

namely the reduced stagnation and

 reduced liklihood of complete

freezing

 in winter.

The record

 shows present water quality violations

 in the

requested receiving waters,

 those waters are unique in that they

are composed exclusively

 of stormwater runoff and groundwater

seepage having

 no physical connection

 to the Illinois River.

The

waterway freezes

 in winter and stagnates

 in summer, and East

Peoria

has

 r~l-~ato~

 ttht c~r~o;~ ‘t~e ~d.

 L:~lit~ons

will

 be minimized or eliminated

 discharging effluent

 to the

waterway.

64-450

—5—

This proceeding presents the Board with an unusual physical

setting and set of circumstances,

 The Petitioner has requested

limited relief from effluent standards.

 The receiving waters are

better characterized as a long, narrow man—made pond or lagoon

than a stream,

 They have

no

connection to the Illinois River

by

which

fish

and

other

aquatic

organisms

may

float

swim

either direction, without going through the pumps.

 inflow

is

from stormwater runoff from less than two square miles of largely

commercial

 land and groundwater seepage.

 The waters even lack

the often overlooked ecological value of

 intermittent streams.

The ditch has no known existing

 or potential recreational value

and

 its utility to fish and wildlife

 is extremely limited at

best.

As stated above,

 the environmental information and water

quality data supplied by the City is sketchy and would be

considered insufficient to support the granting

 of relief

 in most

situations involving such requests.

 However, given the facts

in

the instant proceeding,

 the Board does not believe that any

significant benefit to

the

environment or public interest would

be served by denying

the

requested relief.

 In granting this

relief,

 the Board recognizes that water quality standards will

 continue

 to be applicable to Ditch A.

ORDER

The Board hereby adopts

 the following rule for First Notice

and instructs

 the Clerk of the Board

 to file this rule with the

Secretary of State:

TITLE

35:

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE

C:

 WATER

POLLUTION

CHAPTER I:

 POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

PART

304

SITE—SPECIFIC RULES AND EXCEPTIONS

NOT OF

GENERAL APPLICABILITY

Section 304,211 ç~Ea~~eoria

 Discharges

a)

 This Section applies onjy to effluent discharges from

the City of

East

Peori&s Sewage Treatment Plant No.

1

into Ditch A

in Tazeweil

County,

 Illinois.

b)

 The provisions of Section 304.120(c)

shall

not

apply

said discharges,

provided

that said discharges shall not

exceed

20

mg/i of

fiv~j~y

 biochemical oxygen demand

~

 total

~~ded

solids

±~T2~ET

 number

00530

IT IS SO ORDERED

64-451

—6--

I,

 Dorothy M. Gunn,

 Clerk of

 the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above Proposed Rule/First Notice

Opinion and Order

was

adopted

the

/~~day

of

______

________________,

 1985, by a vote

of

//

Dorothy

 t4. G~ónn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

64-452