ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 20,
1995
IN THE
MATTER
OF:
)
)
PETITION OF THE CITY OF
)
LASALLE FOR EXCEPTION TO THE
)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
)
PCB 86-2
REGULATIONS
)
(CSO Exception)
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by G.
T. Girard):
On September 1,
1995,
the City of LaSalle (LaSalle)
filed a
second amended petition 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 from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) recommending that the Board deny the request for CSO
exception.
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.
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 Recrnlations,
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
2
the violations of applicable water standards unless an
exception has been granted by the Board pursuant to Subpart
D.
Sufficient treatment shall consist of the following:
a)
All dry weather flows, and the first flush of storm
flows as determined by the Agency, shall meet the
applicable effluent standards; and
b)
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
c)
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
d)
Compliance with a treatment program authorized by the
Board in an exception granted pursuant to Subpart D.
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 loint 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
3
The Board’s April
1,
1987 opinion 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.
(Id.)
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.
(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.
(Id.)
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.
(Id.)
Further, the design
maximum flow was decreased from 12 MGD to 9.1 MGD.
(Id.)
LaSalle stated that the 11th Street Pump station and the N &
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.
(November 3,1994 at 2.)
A 60” overflow pipe at the 11th
‘
The April
1,
1987, Board opinion and order will be cited
as “1987 at
_“;
The November
3,
1994 opinion and order will be
cited as 1994 at
_;
LaSalle’s amended petition of September 1,
1995 will be cited as “Am. Pet. at
_“;
the Agency’s response of
November 27,
1995 will be cited as “Ag.
Rec. at
.“
4
Street overflow was also installed south of the old N
& H
Overflow pipe.
(Id.)
In 1991, LaSalle also maintained that
construction involving the Union Street interceptor, the Canal
Street interceptor, the Creve Coeur Street Diversion structure,
upgraded the system and decreased overflows.
(1994 at 2.)
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.
(Id.)
The Board also directed LaSalle,
in consultation with the Agency,
to:
design and construct improvements at CSOs 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 location by December
1,
1994.
(Id.)
5
In a cautionary note the Board also stated:
The Board notes that LaSalle has been operating with a
temporary CSO exception since 1987.
The temporary CSO
exception was granted to allow LaSalle the time necessary to
make changes in the LaSalle waste water collection and
treatment system so that a permanent CSO exception could be
granted.
As is indicated by this opinion, LaSalle has not
fulfilled all the necessary requirements for a permanent CSO
exception despite several years of effort.
The Board will
not be inclined to extend this temporary exception beyond
1995, unless LaSalle can show good cause for doing so.
(1994 at 4.)
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”.
(Id.)
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 overflow (004)
from the combined
sewer system and sealed the Fifth Street overflow.
(Id.)
LaSalle maintains that “any flow currently existing with an
outlet pipe presently, does not originate from any portion of any
remaining combine system”.
(Id.)
LaSalle admits that a “slight
flow” was noticed during dry weather at the Creve Coeur Street
overflow (003); however, according to LaSalle an investigation
determined that the flow did not originate from the combined
system.
(Id.)
Rather, LaSalle speculates that the flow
originates from LaSalle’s water distribution system.
(Id.)
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
6
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 overflow 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 event
for any overflow to take place at outfall 007.
(Am. Pet. at 11.)
Therefore,
LaSalle asserts it was unable to fully comply with
condition 6(b).
(Id.)
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 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.)
Work associated with the study is being
completed according to LaSalle and data in existence to the date
of the filing of the amended petition was included in Exhibit B
to the petition.
(Id.)
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.
(Id.)
The remaining conditions in the Board’s order deal with
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.
(Id.)
LaSalle further indicates that it has recently appointed a full-
time city engineer with “considerable experience in environmental
matters”.
(Id.)
7
AGENCY RESPONSE
The Agency states that it “cannot recommend” that the
temporary exception to the combined sewer overflow regulations be
extended nor can the Agency recommend that LaSalle be granted a
permanent CSO exception.
(Ag. Rec. at 1.)
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
& N Canal).
(Id.)
The Agency states that it is particularly concerned 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.
(Id.)
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 outfall
006A and 007.
(Ag. Rec.
at 5.)
In the area of 006A, according
to LaSalle’s inspections, the area 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.
(Id.)
8
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, by its own admission,
still has dry—weather
flow at outfall (003).
Further, LaSalle’s inspection narrative
of the area around outfall 003 does not alleviate the Board’s
concern.
The Board believes the record indicates that the
discharge from outfall 003 into the receiving stream could cause
water quality degradation.
In addition, the Agency has pointed to at least two other
outfalls where problems still remain.
Specifically, the record
indicates that there are dry-weather flows at outfall 007.
Again, the flow may not be a result of combined sewer,
but, the
discharge from that outfall is a possible conduit for
contamination to the Little Vermilion River.
Thus,
this
discharge may also be negatively impacting the water quality of
the receiving stream.
The Board finds that the record before it establishes
several potential water quality problems as a result of
discharges from the LaSalle combined sewer system.
Therefore,
the Board agrees with the Agency that LaSalle has not justified
permanent CSO exception to the combined sewer overflow regulation
(CSO)
at 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 306.305(a)
and
(b).
The Board denies
the City of LaSalle’s request for exception from the combined
sewer overflow regulations and this docket is closed.
This opinion constitutes the Board findings of facts and
conclusion of law.
ORDER
The Board denies the City of LaSalle’s request for permanent
exception to the combined sewer overflow regulations at 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 306.305(a)
and
(b).
This docket is hereby closed.
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS
5/40.1) provides for the appeal of final Board orders within 35
days of service of this decision.
The Rules of the Supreme Court
of Illinois establish filing requirements.
(But see also,
35
Ill. Adm. Code 101.246, Motions for Reconsideration.)
I, Dorothy N.
Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above opinion and order was
adopted on the
~?~Z~l-day of
~
,
1995, by a
vote of
7-0
Dorothy ?~7Gunn,Clerk
Illinois(31ollution Control Board
