86002D.PDF

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 18, 1996

IN MATTER OF:

PETITION OF THE CITY OF LASALLE

FOR EXCEPTION TO THE COMBINED

SEWER OVERFLOW REGULATIONS

)

PCB 86-2

(CSO Exception)

JAMES A MCPHEDRAN OF ANTHONY C. RACCUGLIA & ASSOCIATES APPEARED

ON BEHALF OF CITY OF LASALLE;

LISA E. MORENO APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by G.T. Girard):

On September 1, 1995, the City of LaSalle (LaSalle) filed a second amended petition

(Am.Pet.) for exception to the combined sewer overflow (CSO) regulations at 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 306.305(a) and (b). On November 27, 1995, the Board received a response to the

petition (Ag. Rec.) from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)

recommending that the Board deny the request for CSO exception.

On December 20, 1995, the Board denied LaSalle permanent exception to the CSO

requirement and closed the docket. On January 23, 1996, LaSalle sought reconsideration of

the Board’s order and requested that a hearing be held. On February 2, 1996, the Agency

filed a response which also asked that the Board reconsider and modify the December 20,

1995, opinion and order. The Agency also asked that this matter be set for hearing. On

February 15, 1996 the Board granted reconsideration, vacated its December 20, 1995 opinion

and order and set the matter for hearing.

Hearing was held before the Board Hearing Officer Deborah Frank on May 8, 1996.

Briefs were filed by LaSalle and the Agency on June 4, 1996. The Agency’s brief now

recommends that permanent exception be granted with certain conditions.

The Board first received a request from LaSalle for a permanent exception to the CSO

regulations on January 2, 1986, and on January 9, 1986, the Board accepted that petition. A

public hearing was held on July 21, 1986. Additional information was provided by LaSalle on

August 21, 1986. On April 1, 1987, the Board granted a temporary CSO exception to LaSalle

with conditions and retained jurisdiction over the proceeding.

For the reasons discussed below the Board will grant a permanent exception to 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 306.305(a) regarding first flush of storm flows and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.305(b)

for LaSalle’s CSO outfall 007 and CSO outfall 006A. The Board will further grant an

exception to the compliance deadlines of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.306 for CSO outfall 003

subject to the conditions discussed below.

BACKGROUND

The City of LaSalle is located in LaSalle County along both sides of Illinois Route 351

from the north bank of the Illinois River to a point just south of Interstate Route 80. The

Illinois River flows from east to west along the south boundary of the community.

The Board has previously discussed in detail the relevant background information in

this proceeding. Rather than repeat that information here, the Board hereby incorporates by

reference in this opinion the Board's April 1, 1987 and November 3, 1994, opinions and

orders (In the Matter of: Petition of the City of LaSalle for Exception to Combined Sewer

Overflow Regulations, 77 PCB 21, PCB 86-2; PCB , PCB 86-2). The Board directs

interested persons to those previous decisions for a more comprehensive review.

CSO REGULATIONS

The CSO regulations are contained in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 306. Section 306.305

provides as follows:

All combined sewer overflows and treatment plant bypasses shall be given

sufficient treatment to prevent pollution, or the violations of applicable water

standards unless an exception has been granted by the Board pursuant to Subpart

Sufficient treatment shall consist of the following:

All dry weather flows, and the first flush of storm flows as determined

by the Agency, shall meet the applicable effluent standards; and

Additional flows, as determined by the Agency but not less than ten

times to [sic] average dry weather flow for design year, shall receive a

minimum of primary treatment and disinfection with adequate retention

time; and

Flows in excess of those described in subsection (b) shall be treated, in

whole or in part, to the extent necessary to prevent accumulations of

sludge deposits, floating debris and solids in accordance with 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 302.203, and to prevent depression of oxygen levels; or

Compliance with a treatment program authorized by the Board in an

exception granted pursuant to Subpart D.

Section 306.306 sets forth specific timeframes for compliance with the provisions of Section

306.305.

Subpart D sets forth the CSO exception procedures. Section 306.350 states that an

exception shall be granted by the Board based upon "water quality effects, actual and potential

stream uses, and economic considerations including those of the discharger and those affected

by the discharge". Section 306.360 allows the discharger to file a petition for an exception

either singly, or jointly with the Agency. In order for a discharger to receive a CSO

exception, a certain level of justification for the exception is required to be submitted. This

level of justification differs depending on whether the discharger filed a single or joint petition

for CSO exception. The level of justification required of a joint petition is set forth in Section

306.362 which provides for a demonstration under Section 306.361(a) (i.e., minimal discharge

impact) which is not available to single petitioners. LaSalle as a single petitioner, justifies its

claim for a CSO exception based on Section 306.361(b), (c) and (d).

Section 306.361(d), applicable to single petitioners under Section 306.362, provides

that a discharger may establish that because special circumstances exist, a detailed water

quality evaluation (required pursuant to Sections 306.361(b) and (c)) would be inapplicable for

reasons of irrelevancy or the expense of data collection in relation to the relevancy of the data.

BOARD'S 1987 OPINION

The Board's April 1, 1987 opinion (1987) indicated that the Agency testified that

LaSalle did take all the necessary steps to qualify as joint petitioners with the Agency,

including submitting a Phase I study on October 5, 1983 and a Phase II Study on October 23,

1984. (1987 at 2.) However, the Agency chose not to co-petition with LaSalle because of the

late date at which LaSalle's petition was received, and because of Agency concerns related to

whether water quality and other environmental impacts will be alleviated after the City's

proposed improvements are completed. (

.) Further, Mr. Tim Zook of the Agency testified

that although a detailed CSO impact study (i.e., Phase III Study) was not conducted, pursuant

to Section 306.361 (b) and (c), a study prepared for LaSalle by Serco Laboratories does give

substantial information concerning water quality impacts.

The Board in its 1987 opinion also detailed the compliance options and the cost

effectiveness of each option. (1987 at 5-7.) The Board in the 1987 opinion held that LaSalle

had not justified a permanent CSO exception, but had justified a temporary CSO exception

with conditions. Among other conditions, the Board order required an amended petition be

filed by March 1, 1990, as well as requiring LaSalle to construct and operate improvements to

its wastewater collecting system, and continue monitoring. On March 22, 1990, the Board

extended until March 1, 1991, the deadline for the amended petition.

BOARD'S 1994 OPINION

In the amended petition of March 1, 1991, LaSalle stated that improvements have

resulted in the elimination of all dry weather overflows. (November 3, 1994 opinion and

order (1994) at 2.) LaSalle pointed out that since the Board granted the temporary CSO

exception in 1987, LaSalle has constructed and was operating improvements to its wastewater

collection system and treatment plant. (

.) LaSalle also provided information regarding

improvements to the wastewater treatment plant which increased the design average flow of the

plant from 2.2 MGD to 3.3 MGD. (

.) However, the design maximum flow was decreased

from 12 MGD to 9.1 MGD. (

LaSalle stated that the 11th Street Pump station and the M & H Outfall have been

eliminated by installing a diversion structure near the location of the 11th Street Pump Station,

routing all existing sewers which were tributary to the Pump Station through this structure, and

abandoning the M & H Pipe in place. (1994 at 2.) A 60" overflow pipe at the 11th Street

overflow was also installed south of the old M & H Overflow pipe. (

.) In 1991, LaSalle

also maintained that construction involving the Union Street interceptor, the Canal Street

interceptor, and the Creve Coeur Street Diversion structure upgraded the system and decreased

overflows. (

To further reduce the possibility of overflows, LaSalle had implemented a policy that

any major street repair would involve new storm sewers as well as adding a street sweeping

program to remove debris before the debris can enter the sewer. (1994 at 2-3.) Finally,

LaSalle stated that its population had decreased by approximately 6.3% since the 1980 census

and one large industrial user has been lost, while a second industrial user had significantly

upgraded its pre-treatment facility and a third is presently subject to a compliance plan to

install a pre-treatment facility. (1994 at 3.)

In November 1994, the Board found that LaSalle's March 1, 1991 amended petition

lacked sufficient information to grant a permanent CSO exception as there were some areas

where dry-weather overflows may be occurring. (1994 at 4.) The Board stated:

The Board is particularly concerned in that LaSalle was offered an opportunity

to update the information before the Board in June of this year. LaSalle choose

not to file any further information with the Board. The Board finds that LaSalle

has failed to provide necessary data to allow the Board to determine what impact

the requested exception will have on the environment. Therefore, the Board

will not grant a permanent CSO exception at this time. Instead, the Board will

accept the Agency's recommendation and extend the temporary exception with

certain conditions.

(1994 at 4.)

The Board's 1994 order set forth eight conditions which included a requirement that

LaSalle shall eliminate all dry-weather overflows as well as providing any raw data LaSalle has

with respect to monitoring outfalls 003, 004, 006, 006A and 007. (1994 at 6.) Further, the

Board's order required LaSalle to repair outfall 006, prior to performing stream inspections, so

the flow can properly enter the Little Vermilion River. (

.) The Board also directed LaSalle,

in consultation with the Agency, to: design and construct improvements at CSO outfalls 006

and 004 (5th Street and Marquette Street) to permanently eliminate the dry weather overflows

at these locations by March 1, 1995; complete a Phase II report as outlined in 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 375.203 and submit it to the Agency by May 15, 1995; and complete and submit to the

Agency a Plan of Study (POS) for a Phase III Evaluation at each CSO outfall location by

December 1, 1994. (

SECOND AMENDED PETITION

In general, the second amended petition states that LaSalle has continued the policy of

street sweeping and upgrading storm sewers. (Am. Pet. at 6-7.) LaSalle reiterates that certain

industrial users have ceased operations while other industrial users have upgraded pretreatment

facilities. (Am. Pet. at 6.) Further, LaSalle states that it has received recent approval from

USEPA of "upgraded standards regarding its wastewater treatment plant". (

Specifically, LaSalle submitted information regarding each of the conditions from the

Board's 1994 order. Regarding Condition 1, which required that LaSalle eliminate all dry-

weather overflows, LaSalle maintains that it has eliminated all dry-weather overflows. (Am.

Pet. at 10.) LaSalle states that it has removed the Marquette Street outfall (004) from the

combined sewer system and sealed the Fifth Street outfall. (

.) LaSalle maintains that "any

flow currently existing with an outlet pipe presently, does not originate from any portion of

any remaining combined system". (

.) LaSalle admits that a "slight flow" was noticed

during dry weather at the Creve Coeur Street outfall (003); however, according to LaSalle an

investigation determined that the flow did not originate from the combined system. (

Rather, LaSalle speculates that the flow originates from LaSalle's water distribution system.

(

Conditions 2 and 3 granted LaSalle a temporary CSO exception until December 1,

1995 from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.305(a) regarding the first flush of storm flows and from 35

Ill. Adm. Code 306.305(b) and required LaSalle to submit an amended petition on or before

September 1, 1995. LaSalle timely filed this amended petition.

Condition 4 required LaSalle to provide any raw data it has with respect to monitoring

outfalls 003, 004, 006, 006A and 007. LaSalle submitted summaries of the data as Exhibits A

and B to the amended petition filed on September 1, 1995. (Am. Pet. at 11.) Condition 5

required LaSalle to repair outfall 006, prior to performing stream inspections, so the flow can

properly enter the Little Vermilion River. LaSalle states that outfall 006 was eliminated on

November 15, 1994. (Am. Pet. at 11.)

Condition 6 set forth several requirements for LaSalle including a requirement to

design and construct improvements at outfalls 006 and 004 (5th Street and Marquette Street) to

permanently eliminate the dry weather overflows at these locations by March 1, 1995. As

stated above, LaSalle maintains that it has eliminated all dry-weather overflows. (Am. Pet. at

11.)

Condition 6(b) required LaSalle to complete a Phase II report as outlined in 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 375.203 and submit to the Agency by May 15, 1995. LaSalle indicates that it

completed inspection for low flow events in September of 1994; however, stream and

environmental conditions have not resulted in an overflow at outfall 007. (Am. Pet. at 11.)

Therefore, LaSalle asserts it was unable to fully comply with condition 6(b). (

Condition 6(c) required LaSalle to complete and submit to the Agency a Plan of Study

(POS) for a Phase III Evaluation at each CSO outfall location by December 1, 1994. LaSalle

states that a Phase III stream study was submitted to the Agency by December 1, 1994. (Am.

Pet. at 11.) According to LaSalle, work associated with the study is being completed and data

in existence at the date of the filing of the amended petition was included in Exhibit B to the

petition. (

Condition 6(d) prohibited expansion of the service area tributary to the combined

sewers and condition 6(e) required LaSalle to continue its monitoring of the combined sewer

overflows on a weekly basis and after every major rainfall. LaSalle states that no extensions

of service have been allowed and monitoring has been continued. (Am. Pet. at 12.) LaSalle

has submitted copies of all monitoring reports to the Agency and included a summary of the

reports in Exhibit A. (

The remaining conditions in the Board's 1994 order concerned procedural

considerations and LaSalle simply acknowledges those conditions in the second amended

petition. (Am. Pet. at 12.) LaSalle also states that it remains willing to "continue to be alert

to any additional issues that may arise". (Am. Pet. at 12.) As an example of LaSalle's

diligence, LaSalle reportedly "spent considerable time investigating potential solutions" to a

recent increase in the frequency and amount of backups. (

.) LaSalle further indicates that it

has recently appointed a full-time city engineer with "considerable experience in environmental

matters". (

MAY 8, 1996 HEARING

Mr. William Etzenbach testified on behalf of LaSalle and indicated what additional

measures LaSalle would undertake to correct ongoing problems at CSO outfalls 007, 006A and

003. (Tr. at 76.) At CSO outfall 007, in dry weather there is infiltration of groundwater into

the discharge pipe. (Tr. at 78.) The discharge is contaminated primarily with metals. (Tr. at

78-79.) Mr. Etzenbach testified that LaSalle will dam the pipe at the bottom and pump the

infiltrations back into the sewage system for treatment. (Tr. at 79.) The estimated cost of the

pumping station is $70,000. (Tr. at 81.) Mr. Etzenbach testified that LaSalle will have the

facility designed and plans submitted to the Agency for a construction permit by December 31,

1996, with completion of the project by December 31, 1997. (Tr. at 92.)

With regard to problems identified in the Agency response to the discharge at CSO

outfall 006A, Mr. Etzenbach testified that the “visual appearance leaves nothing to be

desired”. (Tr. at 80.) However to insure that no further problems may occur, LaSalle is

prepared to install a hand raked bar screen. (Tr. at 80.) LaSalle further proposes that the bar

screen be visited on a weekly basis and after any rainfall event that might cause an overflow.

(

Id.

) Such visits would allow crews to rake the bar screen, raking the material into the sewer

system and performing remedial action if necessary. (Tr. at 80-81.) The cost of installing the

bar screen is estimated at $5,600. (Tr. at 81.) Mr. Etzenbach testified that the bar screen

could be fabricated and installed by the end of 1996. (Tr. at 92.)

Mr. Etzenbach testified that LaSalle does not have enough solid information to design a

plan for CSO outfall 003 at this time; however, LaSalle does have a two-phase plan for

proceeding with bringing CSO outfall 003 into compliance. (Tr. at 82.) First, LaSalle will

construct a bar screen in the overflow manhole to be visited and maintained in the same

manner as the bar screen for outfall 006A. (

.) Mr. Etzenbach testified that the bar screen

would provide immediate relief. (Tr. at 83.) Second, LaSalle would capture the entire first

flush and provide a secondary treatment and capture the next ten times average dry weather

flow and provide primary treatment. (Tr. at 83-84.) The second phase will require additional

investigation and study. (Tr. 82-84.) Mr. Etzenbach testified that a very rough estimate for

the cost of proceeding with this plan would be just over $3,000,000. (Tr. at 89.) Mr.

Etzenbach testified that phase one could be completed by December 31, 1996. (Tr. at 92.)

Mr. Etzenbach stated that the first flush rate and volume, and dry weather flow monitoring,

should be completed by June 30, 1997, and construction alternatives by December 31, 1999.

(Tr. at 92-93.) LaSalle would then choose the best plan by December 31, 2000, with permits

and financing obtained by December 31, 2001. (

AGENCY RESPONSE

After the Board issued the December 20, 1995 order denying LaSalle a permanent

exception, the Agency joined LaSalle in asking the Board to reconsider the December 20, 1995

order. The Agency also joined in LaSalle’s request for hearing. For the record, the Board

notes that the Agency, in its initial response to the amended petition, stated that the Agency

"cannot recommend" that the temporary exception to the CSO regulations be extended nor can

the Agency recommend that LaSalle be granted a permanent CSO exception. (Ag. Rec. at 1.)

Also for the record the Board will summarize the concerns raised by the Agency in the initial

response. However, at hearing and in the Agency’s post-hearing brief, the Agency indicated

that it now supported LaSalle’s request for exception with certain conditions. (Tr. at 102;

Resp. Br. at 1.)

Response

The Agency acknowledges that LaSalle "has made significant improvements in its

overall CSO" system. (Ag. Rec. at 7.) However, the Agency is concerned that discharges

from certain CSO outfalls still apparently cause sludge deposits in the Illinois and Michigan

Canal (I & M Canal). (

The Agency indicated particular concerns about the conditions at CSO outfall 003

which discharges into the I & M Canal. (Ag. Rec. at 3-4.) By LaSalle's own admission dry-

weather flow is occurring at this outfall apparently from the potable water distribution system.

(Ag. Rec. at 4.) The Agency is concerned that this is a potential cross-connection which is

prohibited by regulation. (

.) In addition, the Agency points to the observations made by

LaSalle's personnel when carrying out a low stream flow inspection in 1994.

According to

the inspection:

A general overall inspection of the outfall area indicated the presence of rags,

paper and feminine hygiene products. A smell similar to that found in a bar

screen building was present. The water in these pockets was a milky green

color. There were also isolated areas of turbid green water with debris.

Probing of the bottom sediment, which appeared to be a sandy soil, indicated

the presence of fresh and partially deteriorated organic material. This sediment

was black, gritty and had a septic odor. Approximately twenty percent of the

bed appeared to contain these deposits which were 1/4 inch in depth in an area

of stream about 300 feet long.

Exhibit A, par. 6.1-1; Ag. Rec. at 4-5.

In addition to the Agency's concerns involving outfall 003, the Agency is also

concerned about the conditions around outfalls 006A and 007. (Ag. Rec. at 5.) In the area of

outfall 006A, according to LaSalle's inspections, is being used as an illegal dump. (Exhibit A,

par 6.2-1; Ag. Rec. at 5.) The Agency believes that additional Phase II stream inspection

should be made in this area to insure that the debris is not masking impacts from the CSO.

(Ag. Rec. at 5.) Outfall 007 also has evidence of dry-weather flows, apparently due to

groundwater infiltration from an old industrial site. (Ag. Rec. at 6.) The Agency is

concerned that the outfall pipe may be serving as a conduit for transporting potentially

hazardous materials directly to the Little Vermilion River. (

Hearing and Agency Post-Hearing Brief

At hearing, Mr. Dean Studer testified on behalf of the Agency. (Tr. at 102.) Mr.

Studer indicated that the compliance plans testified to by Mr. Etzenbach on behalf of LaSalle

were acceptable to the Agency. (Tr. at 102-107.) Mr. Studer further testified that the

timeframes given for completion of the compliance plans were realistic and acceptable to the

Agency. (

The Agency, in its post-hearing brief, recommends that LaSalle be granted a permanent

exception to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.305(a) regarding first flush of storm flows and 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 306.305(b) for CSO outfalls 006A and 007. (Resp. Br. at 1.) The Agency also

recommends that LaSalle be granted an exception to the compliance deadlines of 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 306.306 for CSO outfall 003. (

.) The Agency further recommends conditions to be

The inspection is discussed in Exhibit A to LaSalle’s second amended petition (Exhibit A)

titled “Update of Report of Monitoring Program to Comply with Illinois Pollution Control

Board Order No. 89-2 April 1, 1987.”

included in the exceptions. (Resp. Br. at 7.) The conditions recommended by the Agency

set forth the plans for compliance testified to by Mr. Etzenbach. (

DISCUSSION

As previously stated a CSO exception shall be granted by the Board based upon "water

quality effects, actual and potential stream uses, and economic considerations including those

of the discharger and those affected by the discharge". (Section 306.350.) LaSalle has made

significant progress in correcting the deficiencies in LaSalle’s sewer overflow systems.

LaSalle has established that an exception is economically justified and the environmental

impact of the permanent exception has been minimized. LaSalle has addressed concerns of the

Agency and the Board and LaSalle has committed to correcting the remaining problems at

outfalls 003, 006A and 007 within a specific timeframe. Therefore, the Board will grant

permanent exception to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.305(a) regarding first flush of storm flows and

35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.305(b) for CSO outfalls 006A and 007. The Board also grants

LaSalle an exception to the compliance deadlines of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.306 for CSO

outfall 003, subject to the conditions set forth in the Agency’s brief. This docket is closed.

This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

ORDER

The City of LaSalle is hereby granted an exception from the combined sewer overflow

regulation of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.305(a) as it relates to the first flush of storm flows and

from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.305(b) for CSO outfall 006A and CSO outfall 007, and from the

compliance dates of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.306 for CSO outfall 003, subject to the following

conditions:

LaSalle shall:

Install bar screens and maintain for CSO outfall 006A and CSO

outfall 003 no later than December 1, 1996.

Install a pump station capable of transporting all dry weather flows

from CSO outfall 007 no later than December 31, 1997.

Complete a monitoring program at CSO outfall 003 sufficient to

determine first flush rate and dry weather flow volumes no later than

June 30, 1997.

Develop and select a compliance alternative for CSO outfall 003 no

later than December 31, 1999.

Complete design and submit a construction permit to IEPA for the

selected CSO outfall 003 compliance alternative no later than

December 31, 2000.

Complete construction of the selected compliance alternative for CSO

outfall 003 no later than December 31, 2003.

The grant of exception does not preclude the Agency from exercising its

authority to require as a permit condition a CSO monitoring program

sufficient to assess compliance with this exception and any other Board

regulations and other controls, if needed, for compliance, including

compliance with water quality standards.

This grant of exception is not to be construed as affecting the

enforceability of any provisions of this exception, other Board

regulations, the Environmental Protection Act, or the federal Clean

Water Act.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/41 (1994)) provides for

the appeal of final Board orders within 35 days of the date of service of this order. The Rules

of the Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing requirements. (See also 35 Ill. Adm. Code

101.246 "Motions for Reconsideration.")

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

the above opinion and order was adopted on the _____ day of ___________, 1996, by a vote

of ______________.

___________________________________

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board