ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June 30,

1988

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITION O~THE CITY OF

JOLIET FOR A SITE SPECIFIC

)

R84—20

RULE FOR THE EAST SIDE

JOLIET WASTEWATER TREATMENT

FACILITY

PROPOSED RULE.

FIRST NOTICE.

PROPOSED OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by 3.

Theodore Meyer):

This matter

is before the Board on

a May 29,

1984 petition

for site specific rulemaking

filed by the City of Joliet.

Joliet

asks that

its East Side Wastewater Treatment Plant

(EWTP)I which

discharges

into Hickory Creek,

be exempted

from the effluent

limitations

for biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD)

and suspended

solids

(SS)

applicable

to Hickory Creek.

Those limitations,

found

at 35

Iii.

Adm. Code 304.120(c),

are 10 milligrams per

liter

(mg/i)

and

12

rng/l, respectively.

Instead, Joliet requests

that the discharges from EWTP be subject

to the BOD and SS

limitations

applicable to the Des

Plaines

River.

Those

standards, set forth at 35

Ill.

Adrn.

Code 304.120(b),

are 20 mg/i

BOD and

25 mg/i

SS.

The merit hearing

in this matter was held on September

25,

1984 at Joliet City Hall.

The Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency

(Agency) submitted supplemental

information on November

5,

1986,

and Joliet provided additional information on November

10,

1986 and January 15,

1987.

On October

14,

1987 the Department

of

Energy and Natural Resources

(DENR) submitted

its economic impact

study

(EcIS),

entitled

“The Economic

Impact of Proposed Site

Specific Changes

to Water Pollution Regulations Affecting Joliet,

Illinois.”

(Ex.

D.)

An economic impact hearing was held

at

Joliet City Hall on March

29, 1988.

The comment period closed on

April

29,

1988.

Background

Joliet’s EWTP

is

an activated sludge plant with

a design

average flow of 22.5 MGD.

The plant has a primary treatment

capacity of

33 MGD,

a secondary treatment capacity of

up

to 45

MGD,

and provides disinfection only for flows

from 45

to

66

MGD.

The

treatment units

include mechanical trash screens and

comminutors,

velocity control

(non—aerated) grit chambers,

rectangular primary clarifiers,

aeration tanks with diffused

aeration equipment, peripheral

feed final clarifiers,

return

sludge pumping equipment,

and chlorination facilities.

Primary

90—617

---

—2—

sludge and waste activated

sludge are digested

in the primary

anaerobic digesters.

The digested sludge

is concentrated

in the

secondary digester and applied

to farmland.

The plant is located along Hickory Creek

near

its confluence

with the Des Plaines

River.

Hickory Creek flows

into the Des

Plaines jus~below Brandon Dam.

Plant effluent

is discharged

into Hickory Creek

through outfall

001,

which

is located 450 feet

upstream from the Des Plaines.

Outfall

002 operates

as an

emergency bypass,

with those

flows receiving only disinfection.

This second outfall,

located upstream from outfall

001,

was used

Only twice between 1981 and 1984.

(Transcript

of September

25,

1984

(Tr.

I)

at

37.)

Most of

the land along Hickory Creek below

the plant’s outfalls

is owned

by Joliet.

Access

to the creek

is

limited by the plant

to the north

and dense vegetation

to the

south.

There

is

a foot bridge over

the creek about

1500 feet

upstream

of the outfalls.

(Tr.

I at 15—16,

51.)

The lower

portion of Hickory Creek, where

the EWTP

is located, has been

channelized by the Illinois Department

of Transportation

for

flood control purposes.

(Transcript of March

29,

1988 hearing

(Tr.

II) at

53; Tr.

I

at

43.)

Between January 1984 and October

1985,

the average

BOD

in

the plant effluent was 16.5 mg/i,

and the average SS was 17.3

mg/l.

(Ex.

F

at 6.)

The concentration of BOO

in the creek

is

more

than twice as high downstream

from outfall

001

(83 mg/i)

than

it

is upstream from the outfall

(39 mg/i).

(Tr.

I

at 19—

20.)

The levels of SS

are roughly

the same.

Joliet states that

the increased BOD concentration

is due

to backmixing from the Des

Plaines

River.

Dennis Duffield,

Director

of Public Works and

Utilities for Joliet,

testified that the flow of

the creek

literally changes direction,

so that sometimes the river backs

up

into the creek.

(Tr.

I

at 17.)

The testimony

of Richard

Pershall,

the principal author

of

the EcIS,

supports Joliet’s

contention.

Mr. Pershall explained that the backmixing

is

a

hydrologic phenomenon.

Because

the Des Plaines

is at a higher

elevation than Hickory Creek, water from the river flows into the

creek

to a point

a few hundred

feet upstream of

the EWTP.

(Tr.

II

at 27—28.)

Joliet has been working with the Agency

to evaluate

alternatives

to upgrade

the existing wastewater collection and

treatment system since

the mid—l970s.

As

a condition of the

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system (NPDES)

permit

for

the EWTP,

Joliet is required

to develop and submit for review

a municipal compliance plan

to upgrade

its wastewater facilities

to meet existing rules and regulations.

That plan,

prepared by

Clark Dietz,

Inc.

and revised

in July 1986,

has been admitted

into the record of this case as

Exhibit

F.

The recommended

additions and modifications

to the system are

to be completed

in

seven phases between

1984 and 2007.

The total project cost

in

90—618

---

—3—

May 1985 dollars

is estimated

at $55,688,000.

(Ex.

F.

at 1.)

The phases of the plan

are:

(1) construction

of separate storm

sewers throughout Joliet;

(2)

the elimination

of combined sewer

overflows

(CSO) where storm sewers have

been constructed,

and the

reduction

in frequency of CSOs at other

locations;

(3) upgrading

the EWTP,

including addition of

final clarifiers and an anaerobic

digester, modification

of the chlorination facilities,

and

construction

of

an interceptor at McDonough Street

to transfer

some flow from the EWTP

to the West Side Wastewater Treatment

Plant

(WWTP);

(3A)

approval

of this site specific rule change or

construction

of

a new effluent sewer

so that the EWTP may

discharge

at levels applicable

to the Des Plaines River;

(4)

the

monitoring and evaluation of the existing CSOs,

so as

to identify

priorities

for

the elimination of the CSO5;

(5) design and

construction

of

improvements at the EWTP to provide for

nitrification;

(6)

a final assessment of the improvements

in

water quality as

a result of

the construction

of storm sewers;

and

(7) any additional work

if required, based upon

the results

of the final assessment of phase

6.

(Ex.

F at 48—55.)

The

Agency approved this plan

in July

1986,

and Joliet has begun work

on many of the phases.

(See Tr.

II at 46—52.)

Compliance Alternatives

There

are five

identified alternatives available

to Joliet

for reducing BOO and SS discharges from the EWTP.

The first

three alternatives

involve additions

to the plant

in the form of

advanced

wastewater technologies,

and include multi—media

filtration, carbon absorption/multi—media

filtration and chemical

coagulation.

The fourth and fifth alternatives, although failing

to reduce effluent levels,

relieve Joliet from meeting water

quality standards

for Hickory Creek

by routing

the plant’s

outfall

to the Des Plaines River which has higher standards

of 20

and

25 mg/l for BOD and SS, respectively.

One alternative

for

rerouting the outfall

is for

it

to

run south under the creek,

then west

in order

that

it discharges downstream from Hickory

Creek.

The other

alternative would involve routing

it directly

west

so that

it discharges

in the Des Plaines, upstream from

Hickory Creek.

The EcIS examined these five alternatives, and

made the following estimates of costs

for each alternative:

Multi—Media Filtration

(Alt.

1)

$

9,258,719

Carbon Absorption

(Alt.

2)

$19,377,263

Chemical Coagulation

(Alt.

3)

$17,834,638

Relocate Outfall

(under Hickory Creek)

(Alt.

4)

$

855,890

Relocate Outfall

(directly west)

(Alt.

5)

$

491,958

90—619

---

—4—

(Ex.

D at 29—45;

Ec.

D, Table

4.)

Joliet has rejected the advanced treatment technologies

(Alt.

1—3)

as too expensive.

(Petition

at

10; Tr.

I

at

23.)

If

its petition for

a site specific rule

is not granted, Joliet will

construct Alternative

4 and thus extend

the outfall pipe under

Hickory Creek and then west

to

the river.

(Tr.

I at 21—23;

Ex.

F

at

53.

)

Joliet does not believe that Alternative

5, which calls

for routing

the outfall directly southwest

of

the EWTP to the Des

Plaines

just below

the dam,

can be constructed

as

estimated

in

the EcIS.

Mr. Duffield stated that the discharge

at that point

would

be immediately adjacent

to the storm sewer outfall which

is

located

in the toe of

the riverwall.

(Tr.

II

at

54.)

Another

disadvantage with Alternative

5

is that some

or all

of the

effluent would

end up

in Hickory Creek

as Des Plaines River

backwater,

since

the outfall would be upstream from the mouth

of

the creek.

(Ex. D

at.

44.)

A sixth alternative

is

to run

the

outfall directly west of the plant

to the Des Plaines,

above

Brandon Dam.

However,

both Joliet and the EcIS

rejected this

option.

Since

the existing river wall

is

20 feet higher than the

treatment plant property,

a pump would

be required,

adding

significantly

to the cost of the project.

(Tr.

I at 26—27;

Ex.

D

at 44.)

Economic Impact

Joliet does not contend

that compliance with the BOO and SS

limitations

is not technically feasible, but argues that the cost

of compliance

is economically unreasonable when compared

to the

small benefit

to the environment.

Joliet points out that it

is

undertaking

a significant effort

to upgrade its

treatment

facilities and that its municipal compliance plan will

result in

a better

class of

treatment than

is now provided.

The upgrading

of the EWTP will result

in a

longer detention and aeration time

so that ammonia nitrogen will be removed.

Mr. Duffield testified

that the proposal would

at least retain the same level

of BOD in

the effluent,

if not

reduce that

level.

(Tr.

II at 63—64.)

Therefore, Joliet asks that instead of directing funds

to the

construction of

a new outfall the City be allowed

to use those

funds towards the upgrading

of their wastewater system, with

a

greater positive

impact on the environment.

(Tr.

II

at

70.)

In addition

to evaluating compliance alternatives and

estimating their costs,

the EcIS calculated

the costs to Joliet’s

utility customers of implementing each alternative.

Assuming an

average monthly bill of

$10.10, utility bills

would increase as

follows:

.0—620

---

—5—

Monthly

Increase

Increase

Multi—Media Filtration

(Alt.

1)

$3.38

34

Carbon Absorption

(Alt.

2)

$5.93

59

Chemical Coagulation

(Alt.

3)

$5.20

52

Relocate Outfall

(under

Hickory Creek)

(Alt.

4)

$

.21

2

Relocate Outfall

(directly

west)

(Alt.

5)

$

.10

1

(Ex.

D at 4.)

The EcIS also assessed

the benefits

of reduced

levels

of BOD and SS

in regard to six direct benefit

categories:

(1) recreational opportunities;

(2) aquatic

life;

(3) stream maintenance;

(4)

flood control;

(5) agriculture;

and

(6) human health.

The EcIS concluded that only recreational

opportunities and stream maintenance could be quantified:

the

other

four categories

are significantly impacted by reduced

pollutant levels.

(Ex.

0.

58—66.)

The benefit to

recreational

opportunities was

calculated at $460

(Ex.

D at 59—60), and the

benefit

to stream maintenance was valued at $2332

(Ex.

D at 64—

66).

The EelS thus found a large disparity between the costs of

each alternative and the associated benefits.

Costs

Benefits

Alternative

1

$

9,258,719

$2792

Alternative

2

$19,377,263

$2792

Alternative

3

$17,834,638

$2792

Alternative

4

$

855,890

$2792

Alternative

5

$

491,958

$2792

(Ex. D

at

5;

73—78.)

The cost of Alternative

5,

the least costly

option,

is 176

times as great

as the value of direct benefits.

Joliet believes that the EelS supports

its contention

that

the EWTP outfall

should remain in its current location and that

the additional expense

to relocate the outfall does not provide

benefits even approaching

the cost.

(Tr.

II

at

55.

)

However,

Joliet disputes

the cost estimates made by the EcIS

for

Alternatives

4

and

5.

(Tr.

II at 52—53.)

The EelS estimated the

cost of Alternative

4 at $855,890, while Clark Dietz estimated

the cost

of relocating

the outfall under Hickory Creek

at

90—621

---

—6—

$3,425,000.

(Ex.

F

at

62.)

Mr. Duffield testified

that he feels

that Clark Dietz’s estimate

is very conservative,

but stated that

the actual cost would approach $2,000,000.

(Tr.

II at

53.)

The

difference

in estimates

is partly attributable

to the fact that

the Clark

Dietz estimate done

for Joliet provides for

a longer

run of pipe out into the rivet rather than ending the pipe at the

river bank as

the

EelS assumed.

(Tr.

II

at

53.)

Mr. Duffield

stated

that he thought that Clark

Dietz had proposed

to extend

the outfall

out into the river so as

to get good mixing of the

effluent with the flow of the Des Plaines.

(Tr.

II

at

62.)

The

difference

in estimates for Alternative

4

is also partly due

to

Joliet’s belief that construction

of the outfall will be very

difficult,

since the pipe will run under the channelized portion

of Hickory Creek and then out into the river.

This will involve

rock excavation

in the river, since

the pipe will be buried.

(Tr.

II

at 53,

60,

62.)

As previously noted, Joliet does not

believe that Alternative

5 can be constructed

as proposed.

(Tr.

Ii at

54,

60—61.)

At the economic impact hearing Mr. Pershall presented

some

cost estimates

to bring

the outfall

into the Des Plaines.

He

estimated that

to bring

the outfall

structure 300 feet into the

river

(1/3 its width)

would cost $1,030,000.

Bringing the

structure 450 feet into the river

(1/2

its width) would cost

$1,112,500.

(Tr.

II

at

19.)

Mr. Pershall testified that there

is

no federal or state requirement that the outfall

be actually

in the river,

and that most wastewater treatment plants only

bring the outfall

to the edge of the river.

(Tr.

II at

20.

Environmental Impact

The record

in this ease contains

no information on the water

quality in the stretch

of Hickory Creek downstream from the EWTP

outfall,

and very little information on the water quality

of the

Des Plaines near its confluence with Hickory Creek.

Joliet

states that due

to the substantial backmixing

of the Des Plaines

in the lower

stretch

of the creek,

the water quality

in the creek

at this point would be expected

to closely resemble that of the

Des Plaines.

Joliet has provided 1976 data from a monitoring

station

in the Des Flames downstream of Hickory Creek which

shows

a mean value

of 9.0 mg/i of dissolved oxygen

(DO)

and 3.03

mg/i

of

ammonia nitrogen.

(That monitoring station was closed by

the Agency

in

1976 due

to budgetary constraints.)

At the merit

hearing the Agency asked

if the effluent from the EWTP causes any

water

quality standard violations

of

DO or ammonia nitrogen in

Hickory Creek.

Joliet stated that

it had

no information on that,

and promised

to do sampling and investigate the issue further.

(Tr.

I at 46—47.)

However,

no such information has been

received.

In sum, Joliet’s position

is that since

the downstream

portion of Hickory Creek

is so closely integrated

with the Des

Plaines River,

little benefit can be achieved by extending

the

outfall from the plant into

the river.

(Petition at

9.)

90—622

---

—7—

The EelS used water pollution models

in an attempt

to

predict the impact of BOD and

SS on the water quality

in Hickory

Creek.

The

EelS concluded that the environmental degradation

associated with current levels

of effluent

is minimal.

The BOO

model,

using various concentrations

of

effluent BOD, showed that

in all average conditions the DO

in Hickory Creek remained above

S mg/i, which

is considered

sufficient

to support

a healthy

aquatic environment.

(Ex.

D at 49—53.

)

Suspended solids

discharged from the EWTP will not routinely settle

in the creek

because of their minute particle size.

Turbidity

is not expected

to cause problems because current concentrations are well below

harmful

levels.

(Ex.

D at 53—55.)

In its post—hearing comments,

the Agency again expressed its

concern that

the levels

of DO and ammonia nitrogen might be

adversely affected by Joliet’s proposal,

and pointed out that

Joliet had promised

to investigate

the matter.

The Agency stated

that

it continues

to support Joliet’s request for effluent

relief,

but intends

to require water quality monitoring as

a

specific NPDES permit condition.

(Public Comment

(P.C.)

#6

at

1—

2.)

The Agency points out that Hickory Creek is channelized for

flood control purposes and

is therefore unlikely to support

a

diverse aquatic community regardless of water quality.

The

Agency insists that this fact does not justify degradation of

water quality,

but states that

it does not anticipate that

Joliet’s investigation of water quality impacts will reveal any

water quality problems.

(P.C.

#6 at 3.)

The Agency does contend that the BOD model contained in the

EelS should be discounted by

the Board.

First,

the Agency states

that Mr.

Pershall indicated

that he did not really model BOD and

its effects on the creek’s DO,

but rather did

a simple mass

balance calculation of

the DO after

the effluent mixes with the

creek.

(Tr.

II at 34—35.)

Second,

the Agency maintains that the

EelS’s assumption that the DO in the effluent varies directly

with the BOD concentration is simplistic and typically

inaccurate.

Third,

the Agency notes

that the BOO model assumed

that there

is no entrapment of the creek flow at its mouth, while

Joliet has documented the likelihood

of such occurrences.

Finally,

the Agency submits that the model addressed only average

stream conditions,

giving

the model limited utility in

a low flow

situation where adverse impacts are more likely

to occur.

(P.C.

#6 at 3.)

The Board

notes

that the Des Plaines River

is part

of the

Illinois

& Michigan

(I&M)

National Heritage Corridor.

The

Hearing Officer specifically solicited comments on whether that

status

should have any bearing on the proposed regulation.

Responses

to this request were received from the Agency

(P.C.

#6),

the I&M National Heritage Corridor Commission

(P.C.

#2),

the

Illinois Department of Conservation

(P.C.

#3),

the United States

Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA)

(P.C.

#4), and Joliet

90—623

---

—8—

(P.C.

#5).

These comments agree that the Des Plaines’ status

as

part of the Corridor should have

little

impact on the Board’s

consideration of Joliet’s proposal.

The Agency and Joliet state

that they believe approval

of the rule would

not adversely affect

the character of the river.

Additionally,

both the Corridor

Commission and the Department of Conservation point out that the

federal

legislation which created

the Corridor specifically

states

that such status

is not

to change existing environmental

standards.

(Public Law 98—398,

Sec.

115(a).)

The comments submitted by the Department

of Conservation and

USEPA also addressed the merits of

the proposal.

The Department

of Conservation opposes Joliet’s request,

based upon its concern

that

a greater BOD load

in the lower

stretches of Hickory Creek

would adversely impact

the area’s

fish.

The Department states

that

a 1983

fisheries sample below Brandon Dam included

12

species

of

fish,

a substantial

improvement over the

4

species

collected

in 1974.

The Department feels

that granting Joliet’s

petition would be

in direct opposition

to the Department’s

efforts

to improve the DO situation and

the fisheries.

(P.C.

#3.)

On the other hand,

by

a

letter from Valdas Adamkus, Regional

Administrator, USEPA states that overall, Joliet’s proposal

appears appropriate.

USEPA feels that the petition is not

contradictory

to federal or state antidegradation provisions,

and

appears consistent with federal antibacksliding provisions.

USEPA concurs with Joliet’s contention the expenditures

to

relocate the outfall

to the river do not appear

justified at this

time.

However,

(JSEPA does note the concerns with assuring

protection of water quality

in Hickory Creek

in the future.

USEPA believes that as

a condition

of approval, adequate

monitoring be

required downstream from the EWTP to characterize

both average and potential low flow conditions

in the creek.

USEPA concludes that granting temporary relief should recognize

the potential need for additional treatment in the future,

if

necessary to protect water quality or potential uses.

(P.C.

#4.)

Conclusions

After considering the record

in this case,

the Board

concludes that Joliet has demonstrated that relief is

warranted.

Therefore,

the Board will propose for First Notice

a

regulation exempting Joliet’s EWTP from the BOD and SS

limitations applicable

to Hickory Creek.

Instead,

the BOD and

SS

limitations applicable

to the Des Plaines

River will apply

to the

EWTP.

The Board believes that the cost

of

relocating

the outfall

to the Des Plaines

is not justified by any predicted

environmental benefits at this time.

The Board also notes that

Joliet

is spending significant sums

to upgrade

its wastewater

collection

and treatment system by carrying out the municipal

compliance plan,

with resulting environmental benefits.

Further,

90—624

---

—9—

the Board notes

that Joliet’s chosen compliance alternative

(relocating

the outfall) would not reduce

the levels

of BOO and

SS discharged from the EWTP, but simply discharge the effluent

directly

to the Des Plaines.

Thus,

the denial

of Joliet’s

petition would,

at best,

improve the water quality of only the

450

feet of Hickory Creek between

the present location

of the

outfall and the creek’s confluence with the Des Flames.

However,

the Board shares

the concerns voiced by the Agency,

the Department of Conservation,

and USEPA about the effect of the

proposal on water quality standards, especially levels

of DO and

ammonia nitrogen.

The little information

in the record on water

quality is either outdated or

speculative.

Therefore,

the

regulation proposed today will be temporary,

and will expire on

January

1,

1994.

This period will allow Joliet

to conduct water

quality monitoring

for approximately three years,

and still

have

time

to petition

the Board

for permanent relief

if the monitoring

results are positive.*

Joliet should work with the Agency

to

develop

a monitoring program.

That program shall include

information on,

among

other

things,

average and low flow

conditions

in Hickory Creek downstream from the EWTP,

especially

levels

of DO and ammonia nitrogen.

The program shall

also

address the effects of the EWTP discharge on the area fish and

their

ability to move between

the Des Plaines

and the upstream

portion

of Hickory Creek.

By promulgating

a temporary regulation

the Board

is able

to grant relief

to Joliet while addressing

the

water quality concerns raised

in this proceeding.

ORDER

The Board hereby directs the Clerk

of the Board

to cause

publication

in the Illinois Register

of the First Notice of the

following amendment.

TITLE

35:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE C:

WATER POLLUTION

CHAPTER

I:

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PART 304

EFFLUENT STANDARDS

SUBPART C:

TEMPORARY EFFLUENT STANDARDS

Section 304.302

City of Joliet East Side

Wastewater Treatment Plant

*This schedule assumes that the proposed

regulation will be

finally adopted and effective before January

1,

1989.

Of course,

Joliet need

not wait until then

to begin

a monitoring program.

90—625

---

—10—

This Section applies

only to the City of Joliets

East Side

Wastewater Treatment Plant which discharges

into Hickory Creek

in

Will County,

Illinois.

The discharges

of

that plant shall not be

subject

to the standards

of Section 304.120(c), provided

that

those discharges meet

the five day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOO)

and suspended solids limitations of Section

304.120(b)..

This Section will expire on January 1, 1994.

(Source:

Added at 12

Ill. Reg.

_____,

effective

________________)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above ,P~roposedOpinion and Order

was adopted on the

JO~day

of

_________________,

1988, by a

vote of

7~

.

Illino

on Control Board

90—626