ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

October

19, 1983

VILLAGE OF BOURBONNAIS,

)

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 83—71

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

MR.

MICHAEL R.

BERZ, BERZ

& SMIETANSKI, APPEARED ON BEHALF

OF THE PETITIONER,

THE VILLAGE OF BOURBONNAIS;

MR. RICHARD L. ACKMAN, ACKMAN,

MAREK,

BOYD

& SIMUTIS, LTD.,

APPEARED FOR PETITIONER,

KANKAXEE

WATER COMPANY;

MS. NARY E. DRAKE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, APPEARED FOR RESPONDENT,

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by D. Anderson):

This matter comes before the Board upon a petition for

variance filed June 1,

1983 by the Village of Bourbonnais

(Bourbonnais), requesting a variance from “Rule 306.103-0-2”

to allow sewage treatment plant bypasses in Kankakee County.

On June

16 Mr. Edward S. McGlynn objected to the variance,

and on June 21 Mr. Ed Mullady objected.

The Board set the

matter for a hearing, which was held on August 19 and 29 at

Kankakee.

Members of the public appeared and testified.

On August 25, 1983 Mr. James Prindle and Mr. Gordon

Graves filed an application for intervention on behalf of

the Northern Illinois Anglers Association.

The Hearing

Officer denied intervention on the grounds that the appli-

cation was not timely

(35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.142;

R.

235).

On September 6 the Agency recommended that the variance

be granted with conditions.

On September 12 Bourbonnais

filed a response which expressed general agreement with the

recommendation, except with respect to the amount of iñflow

and infiltration reduction which can be achieved.

Mr. McGlynn

also filed a response to the recommendation, which the Board

deems to be public comment.

On September

6 the Agency filed a motion to join Kankakee

Water Co.

(Water Co.)

as

a party.

As will be further discussed,

the Water Co. owns the sewer lines and operates the treatment

plant, which Bourbonnais owns.

The Agency has recommended

54-245

---

—2—

conditions which would require actions by the Water Co.

On

September 14 the Water Co.

filed an appearance and response

which agreed to joinder, but objected to some aspects of the

recommendation.

On September

19 Mr. Ed Mullady filed a

reply to the response, which does not object to the joinder,

and which the Board deems

to be public comment.

The Board

made the Water Co.

a petitioner on October

6,

1983.

The Board notes that the Water Co. actively partici-

pated in the hearing and was thereby not prejudiced by the

late joinder.

This is fortunate.

Had the Agency filed its

Recommendation by the July

1 due date,

it likely would have

discovered the need to join the Water Co.

in advance of the

hearing date.

The Agency could have filed an amended recom-

mendation after the hearing

if needed.

Facility Description

Bourbonnais owns the wastewater treatment plant.

The

plant is operated by the Water Co., which also owns and

operates the sewage collection system

(R.l30).

The Bourbon—

nais plant serves a population of about 14,360, with 3,909

customers,

112 of which are commercial,

industrial or institu-

tional

(Petn.

6).

The plant treats sewage which averages about 156 mg/i

BOD

(5-day biochemical oxygen demand)

and 176 mg/i TSS

(total suspended solids).

The average dry weather flow is

1 million gallons per day

(1 MGD).

Average flow is 1.6 MGD.

Plant capacity is about 24 MGD

(R.

121,

144, Petn., Attach-

ment B).

Incoming sewage receives primary treatment including

screening and shredding.

The flow is then split into three

roughly equal portions.

One portion passes through an

Imhoff settling tank, trickling filter and settling tank.

The other two portions pass through two different activated

sludge processes

(R.

153).

The plant has had operational

problems which stem in part from difficulties

in controlling

three different processes.

The activated sludge units have

recently been modified to make their operation more similar

(R.

159).

Another problem arises because the aeration tank

is too large for the clarifiers

(R.

158).

This allows

sludge to accumulate for too long,

resulting in resuspension

on gas bubbles.

The plants have been reconfigured to reduce

the aeration tank volume

(R.

158).

The effluent receives final chlorination before discharge

to the Kankakee River pursuant to NPDES Permit No.

1L0025275.

The plant is subject to effluent standards of 20 mg/i BOD

and 25 mg/i TSS.

The plant is on restricted status.

The

54-246

---

—3—

requested variance does not involve either the restricted

status or the effluent standards for the treated effluent.

Upstream of the plant is an overflow point which also

discharges to the Kankakee River.

The overflow was plugged

after the Agency refused to modify the NPDES permit to allow

continuation of its operation.

The 100-year rains of Decem-

ber

2 and 3,

1982 caused the treatment plant to overflow

CR.

94).

On February

17, 1983 the bypass was unplugged pursuant

to NPDES permit conditions allowing the operator to protect

the integrity of the plant

(R.

119).

As presently configured,

any flows in excess of 2.8 MGD

are bypassed to the River without treatment

(R.

121).

The

variance requested would authorize bypass of flows in excess

of 2.4 MGD through 1984, by the end of which time a new

interceptor sewer will be completed connecting Bourbonnais

with the Kankakee treatment plant.

After 1984 flows in

excess of 2.4 MGD,

up to 4.4 MGD, will be transported to

Kankakee for treatment.

The

2 MGD difference is the maximum

which Kankakee can accept for treatment at its existing

plant.

Any

excess over 4.4 MGD would be bypassed until the

fall of 1987, at which time the expanded Kankakee Metro

Plant will open.

It will have sufficient capacity to treat

all of Bourbonnais’ waste

(R.

30,

38).

The Bourbonnais

plant will be kept open to treat waste up to its capacity

until the end of its useful life.

The Bourbonnais plant has hydraulic capacity to treat

waste from the population it serves;

the problem is excess

infiltration and inflow

(R.

159).

A rainfall of only 0.3

inches can cause bypassing

(R.

123).

Most of the system was

built as a separate system,

and the combined portions have

been separated.

Some of the system has been inspected for

leaks,

and extensive, repairs completed.

A major problem

seems

to be the difficulty in reducing inflow from sources

such as sump pumps, downspouts and footing drains.

Bourbonnais

has an ordinance prohibiting such connections, and an inspec-

tion program.

It has achieved disconnection of some

(R.

79,

80).

A more vigorous inspection program needs to be under-

taken, and legal action instituted against illegal connections.

Regulations Involved

Bourbonnais requested a variance from “Rule

306.103—0--

2”;

the Agency recommended a variance from “Rule 306.103—C”.

It appears that variances are needed from 35 Ill.

Adm. Code

306.303 and 306.304, which are the renumbered sections as

amended at

7 Ill.

Reg.

5682, effective April 19,

1983:

54-247

---

—4-.

Section 306.303

Excess Infiltration

Excess infiltration into sewers shall be eliminated,

and the maximum practicable flow shall be conveyed to

treatment facilities.

Section 306.304

Overflows

Overflows from sanitary sewers are expressly prohibited.

Compliance Alternatives

Besides the bypass and diversion to the Kankakee, there

are several compliance alternatives, including the following:

1.

Replugging the bypass;

2.

Construction of a retention basin;

3.

Expansion of the Bourbonnais plant capacity; and,

4.

Reduction in infiltration and inflow.

Replugging the bypass could result in structural damage

to the plant.

If the excess flows are forced through the

plant, the water winds up in the river anyway.

Sludge is

washed out of the plant, actually resulting in a larger mass

discharge than with the bypass.

Contaminant concentrations

during upset conditions are even greater than concentrations

in influent sewage

(R.

248).

After an upset,

the plant

continues to deliver poor performance for days after flows

return to normal

(R. 131).

A ten million gallon retention basin would be required

to contain expected overflows.

This would cost about one

million dollars and would require condemnation of

5 to

10 acres.

This would require several years to plan and

execute.

Expansion of the existing plant would also take

several years

CR.

133,

141).

On the other hand,

the construction of the interceptor

sewer, construction of the Metro Plant and eventual abandon-

ment of the Bourbonnais plant is an on—going, grant-funded

project which will provide the most cost-effective solution

to the problem in less time than would be required for

expensive short—term fixes.

An aggressive program to reduce

inflow may eliminate bypassing

in excess of 4.4 MGD within

two years.

Reduction in infiltration and inflow is consistent with

the interceptor project, and should continue even if there

were adequate capacity to treat the infiltration and inflow.

54-248

---

—5—

Environmental Impact

While the use of the bypass should be discontinued as

soon as is practicable, it is environmentally preferable to

a washout of the plant.

The bypass

is a continuation of a

long-standing practice; authorizing

it by variance will not

result in any degradation of waters beyond that historically

evident.

Water quality and fishing conditions are good both

above and below Bourbonnais

(Testimony

of Dr. Edwin E. Herricks,

pp.

13,

22,

33 and

39).

Dissolved oxygen levels are actually

higher below the plant than upstream

(op.

cit.,

p.

10).

As noted above, the bypass actually introduces a smaller

mass of contaminants into the river than a treatment plant

washout.

During a large bypass, the bypassed sewage is

diluted three to one

(R. 147).

This infers levels of about

40 mg/i BOD and 45 mg/i TSS,

levels which are within a factor

of two of treated effluent, although this certainly is not a

legal or desirable method of achieving the standards.

Use of

the bypass also allows optimal treatment at the plant of a

portion of the flow to continue without interruption.

Hardship

Even apart from the environmental harm,

it is clear that

the potential plant washout and facility damage would impose

arbitrary or unreasonable hardship upon Bourbonnais and the

Water Co.

if it were required to again plug the bypass.

However, this hardship results

in part from the Petitioners’

failure to aggressively reduce inflow, or their failure to

plan for a retention basin or increased capacity for the

Bourbonnais plant pending regionalization.

The Board is

also concerned about a general laxity in taking steps to

improve the operation of the plant until recently.

Under

the circumstances,

the Board feels that the most environ-

mentally effective route is to establish firm conditions in

a grant of variance which order a reduction of the infiltration—

inflow problem by a stepped-up program of disconnection

inspections with sanctions for non—compliance that includes

fines and shut-off of water supplies, and overall reductions

of flows by certain deadlines.

Additionally, more profes-

sional oversight, testing,

and reporting concerning overall

operations

as well as deadlines for the use of the bypass

are included in the Order.

The Board notes that it would be

precluded from establishing such conditions in this case

were the variance to be denied.

The Board will therefore

grant the variance.

The Board’s Order differs from the conditions recom-

mended by the Agency

in some respects, which are discussed

in the following paragraphs.

The Board will grant the variance only through December 31,

1985.

This will be one year after the interceptor is to be

54-249

---

—6—

built, and will allow Petitioners two years to reduce infil-

tration and inflow.

Petitioners may request extension of

the variance if necessary.

Such petition should be filed

before the end of September,

1985, to allow adequate time

for Board action.

The Board will not require sampling of bypassed flows,

or require employment of an operating consultant other than

the certified operator required by Board rules.

The Board

will require continuation of inspection for infiltration and

inflow, but will not specify minimum man-hours or require

Agency approval of consulting contracts.

The Agency recommended a condition requiring 750,000 gallons

per day flow reduction in each of two years.

This appears

to be a reduction in peak flows, rather than average flow.

The recommended condition would be hard to enforce without

specification of the reference level from which reductions

would be judged.

The Board has restated the condition as

a

comparable reduction in average flow of 150,000 gallons per

day per year.

This has been estimated from the data of

Table

3 of Petitioners’

Exhibit 19.

The Agency recommended that the variance be conditioned

on compliance by the plant with effluent limitations.

The

Board declines to condition the variance on compliance with

limitations which are not directly related to the subject

matter of the variance.

Petitioners will be subject to an

enforcement action should they violate the effluent limita-

tions.

The Agency’s suggested condition requiring modification

of and operational changes at the treatment plant was too

vague to be enforceable.

The Board will require Petitioners

to apply for construction permits or modifications to the

NPDES permit to reflect these changes.

The Agency will be

expected to review these with greater specificity than is

possible in this variance.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact

and conclusions of law in this matter.

54-250

---

—7—

ORDER

Petitioners, the Village of Bourbonnais and the Kankakee

Water Co., are granted a variance from 35 Ill. Adm. Code

306.303 and 306.304, for the Bourbonnais wastewater treatment

plant, collection system and bypass overflow, subject to the

following conditions:

1.

This variance will expire on December

31,

1985.

2.

This variance authorizes bypasses of flows only in

excess of 2.4 million gallons per day through

December

31,

1984, or until completion of the

interceptor sewer connecting the Bourborinais

treatment plant to the Kankakee treatment plant,

whichever occurs

first.

3.

This variance authorizes bypasses of flows only in

excess of 4.4 million gallons per day after

termination of condition

(2).

4.

All bypassed flows

shall be measured as to quantity

and duration.

Devices for measuring rainfall

shall be placed at both the Bourbonnais Village

Hall and the treatment plant and rainfall shall be

measured and recorded.

Results of all the above

measurements shall be sent to the Illinois Environ-

mental Protection Agency monthly.

5.

On or before December

1, 1983 Petitioners

shall

apply to the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency for permits and/or permit modifications to

implement the plans for operational change and

recommended monitoring suggested by Dr. Rittman.

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency shall

issue and/or modify permits to require and/or

allow implementation.

6.

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency shall

modify NPDES Permit No. 1L0025275 consistent with

this Order.

7.

On or before December 31, 1983,

a person with

technical training and abilities shall be retained

to make a complete and comprehensive inflow and

infiltration reduction study of the sew~gecollec-

tion system with the purpose of identifying sources

of inflow and infiltration and proposing a plan

for its reduction.

8.

The proposal for inflow and infiltration reduction

shall be implemented in such fashion so as to have

obtained a reduction of average flows to the

54-251

---

—8—

sewage treatment plant of 150,000 gallons per day

by December 31,

1984.

An additional average flow

of 150,000 gallons per day shall be removed from

the system by December 31,

1985.

9.

The present house-to—house inspection program for

detection and removal of downspouts,

footing

drains and sump pump connections to the sanitary

sewer collection system shall be continued.

10.

A mailing shall be made to all customers of the

Kankakee Water Company with sewage flows to the

Bourbonnais sewage treatment plant stating that

the recipient of the notice has ninety

(90) days to

accomplish disconnection of all downspouts,

footing drains and sump pumps and if such unlawful

connection is found the fine called for in the

Village ordinance will be levied and the connections

will be eliminated within ninety

(90)

days.

It

shall also state that upon detection of any recon-

nection of an unlawful connection,

in addition to a

fine, there will be immediate discontinuance of

water service to any such customer.

11.

Such disconnection of service and imposition of

fine shall proceed with all due speed consonant

with Constitutional guarantees and the requirements

of due process.

12.

Within forty-five

(45) days of the date of this

Order, Petitioner,

the Village of Bourbonnais, and

Petitioner, the Kankakee Water Company, shall

execute and forward to the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency,

2200 Churchill Road, Springfield,

Illinois 62706,

a Certificate of Acceptance and

Agreement to be bound to all terms and conditions

of this variance.

This forty-five

(45) day period

shall be held in abeyance for any period this

matter is being appealed.

The form of the certifi-

cate shall be as follows:

CERTIFICATE

I,

(We,) ___________________________,

having

read the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board in PCB 83-71 dated October 19, 1983, under-

stand and accept the said Order,

realizing that

54-252

---

—9—

such acceptance renders all terms and conditions

thereto binding and enforceable.

SIGNED _______________________________

TITLE

________________________________

DATE

_________________________________

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Board Member J. Anderson concurred.

I, Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board,

hereby certify that the ~bgve Opinion and Order

were adopted on the

,‘7t’~

day of

~

,

1983 by a

vote of

_________

t

I

d

Christan L. Mo

,

Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board