ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November 3,
1994
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 March 1,
1991,
the City of LaSalle
(LaSalle)
filed an
amended petition for exception to the combined sewer overflow
regulation
(CSO)
at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.305(a)
and
(b).
On
June 11,
1991, LaSalle filed a supplement to the amended
petition.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
filed a response to the amended petition on May 31,
1991,
and an
update to that response on September 21,
1994.
The Agency
recommends that LaSalle be granted a conditional extension of the
current temporary CSO exception to allow for proper instream
monitoring.
For the reasons set forth below the Board will grant LaSalle
an extension of the temporary CSO exception subject to
conditions.
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.
On January
2,
1986,
the Board received a request from
LaSalle for a permanent exception to the CSO regulations 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 exception to LaSalle with conditions
and retained jurisdiction over the proceeding.
The April
1,
1987, opinion discusses in extensive detail the level of
justification LaSalle was required to meet and finds that LaSalle
met the level of justification.
(April
1,
1987 0 & 0 at 3;
77
‘For a more comprehensive review of the background of this
proceeding refer to the Board’s April
1,
1987, opinion and order
(In the Matter of:
Petition of the City of LaSalle for Exceltion
to Combined Sewer Overflow Regulations,
77 PCB 21, PCB 86-2)
which is hereby incorporated by reference in this opinion.
2
PCB
23.)2
Further, the April
1,
1987, opinion details the
compliance options and the cost effectiveness of each option.
(April
1,
1987 0
& 0 at 5—7.)
The April
1,
1987, opinion finds LaSalle had not justified a
permanent exception, but had justified a temporary exception with
conditions.
The conditions 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.
AMENDED PETITION
LaSalle maintains,
in the amended petition, that the
improvements have resulted in the elimination of all dry weather
overflows.
(Am. Pet at 7.)
LaSalle points out that since the
Board granted the temporary exception in 1987, LaSalle has
constructed and is operating improvements to its wastewater
collection system and treatment plant.
(Am.
Pet. at 5.)
LaSalle
points out that the improvements to the wastewater treatment
plant increased the design average flow of the plant from 2.2 MGD
to 3.3 MGD.
(Exh.
1 at 14-16; Am.
Pet. at 8.)
Further, design
maximum flow was decreased from 12 MGD to 9.1 MGD.
(Id.)
Further, LaSalle states 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.
(Exh.
1 at 10-li; Am. Pet. at 7.)
A 60” overflow
pipe at the 11th Street overflow was also installed south of the
old N
& H Overflow pipe.
(Exh.
1 at 10—11; Am. Pet. at
7..)
LaSalle also maintains that construction involving the Union
Street interceptor, the Canal Street interceptor, the Creve Coeur
Street Diversion structure, upgraded the system and decreased
overflows.
(Exh.
1 at 11; Am.
Pet. at 7.)
To further reduce the possibility of overflows, LaSalle
2
The April
1,
1987,
Board opinion and order will be cited
as “April
1,
1987 0
& 0 at
;
77 PCB
_“;
LaSalle’s amended
petition of March
1, 1991 will be cited as “Am. Pet. at
_“;
the
“Report of Monitoring Program to Comply with Illinois Pollution
Control Board Order” will be cited as “Exh.
1 at
_“;
the
Agency’s response of May 31,
1991 will be cited as “Ag. Rec. at
—
I’
3
has implemented a policy that any major street repair will
involve new storm sewers as well as adding a street sweeping
program to remove debris before the debris can enter the sewer.
(Am.
Pet. at 6.)
Finally, LaSalle states that its population has
decreased by approximately 6.3
since the 1980 census and one
large industrial user has been lost.
(Am. Pet. at 5—6.)
Further, a second industrial user has significantly upgraded its
pre-treatment facility and a third is presently subject to a
compliance plan to install
a pre-treated facility.
(Am. Pet.
at
6.
AGENCY RECOMMENDATION
The Agency has recommended that LaSalle not be granted a
permanent CSO except at this time.
Rather the Agency recommends
that the current temporary exception be extended until December
1,
1995 with conditions.
Those conditions are set forth in
detail and adopted by the Board in this order.
The conditions
include elimination of all dry-weather overflows, additional
design and construction improvements as well as further
monitoring of the outfalls.
DISCUSSION
The Agency recommends against granting
a permanent exception
because of inconsistencies in the information received by the
Agency.
On January 15,
1991,
the Agency received a draft CSO
Operational and Maintenance Plan
(Draft Plan)
for LaSalle.
In
the Draft plan,
incidents of dry weather overflows at Marquette
Street (Outfall
004) and Fifth Street
(Outfall 006) were
mentioned.
(Ag. Rec. at 1.)
However, the Agency states that,
in
LaSalle’s amended petition, LaSalle claims they have eliminated
all dry—weather overflows (See Am. Pet, at 7)
and, based on
LaSalle’s monitoring report, no monitoring occurred at these
outfalls.
(Ag. Rec. at 1—2.)
The Agency also asserts that
during a conversation with Ms. Pam Ochs of Giordano Engineering
Associates,
Inc., Dean Studer of the Agency’s Planning Section
was told that the Marquette Street
(004) and Fifth Street
(006)
CSO’s were not being monitored.
(Ag. Rec. at 2; See IEPA Exhibit
No.
3.)
In addition to this inconsistency in LaSalle’s documents,
the Agency asserts that, Mr. Jack Adam of the Agency’s Rockford
Regional Office witnessed dry—weather overflows at the Marquette
Street CSO
(004)
during a routine annual inspection on December
5,
1990, and he has been informed several times of dry—weather
overflows occurring at the Fifth Street CSO
(006) during 1990.
(Ag. Rec.
at 1; IEPA
Exh.
No.
2.)
The Agency argues that despite
evidence that neither the Marquette Street
(004)
nor the Fifth
Street
(006)
CSO’s were monitored, Table 1.2 in Exhibit 1
provided by LaSalle contains Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD)
and
Total Suspended Solids
(TSS) data allegedly collected from the
4
Marquette Street
(004)
and the Fifth Street
(006)
CSO’s during
1990.
(Ag. Rec. at 1;
Exh.
1 at
3.)
The Agency argues that regardless of when or how the Fifth
Street
(006)
CSO data was obtained, an average BOD of 260
milligrams per liter
(mg/l)
and an average TSS of 956 mg/i are
consistent with levels expected for dry—weather overflows and are
extremely disturbing to the Agency.
(Id.)
According to the
Agency the discharge goes into the Little Vermilion River which
has a 7Q10 flow (average seven day low flow rate likely to
reoccur once every ten years)
of zero.
(Id.)
Such a high BOD
and TSS concentration is likely to exceed the assimilative
capacity of the river.
(Id.)
The Agency also points out that since the Board ruled on
LaSalle’s original CSO petition, the Agency has requested that an
outfall located at Union Street
(006A)
be added as a monitoring
point.
However, the figures provided in Exhibit 1 for the flow
and frequency reductions,
do not reflect the total volume and
events due to the addition of this outfall.
(See Exh.
1 at 29;
Ag. Rec.
at 2.)
Also, omitted from Table 4.1,
is data pertaining
to CSOs 004 and 006.
(See
Exh.
1 at 29.)
CONCLUSION
The Board shares the Agency’s concern that the amended
petition lacks sufficient information to grant a permanent
exception.
Although LaSalle has completed the upgrade to its
system
(Exh.
1
at ii; Am.
Pet. at 7) there are some areas where
dry-weather overflows may be occurring.
LaSalle maintains that
dry—weather overflows have been eliminated at certain outfalls.
(Ant.
Pet. at 7.)
However, the Agency has reported some evidence
that the overflows continue.
(Ag. Rec.
at 1.)
Also, the Agency
suggests that the monitoring data from some outfalls was not
collected.
(Ag. Rec. at 1.)
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.
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
5
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.
ORDER
The Board will grant an extension of the temporary exception
to the combined sewer overflow regulations at 35 Ill. Adm. Code
306.305(a)
and
(b) subject to the following conditions:
1.
LaSalle shall eliminate all dry-weather overflows.
2.
Except as provided in Paragraph 3 of this Order, the
City of LaSalle is granted a temporary 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).
3.
If, on or before September 1,
1995, the City of LaSalle
fails to submit an amended petition for exception, this
temporary exception will terminate on September 1,
1995.
4.
LaSalle shall provide any raw data it has with respect
to monitoring Outfalls 003,
004,
006,
006A and 007.
5.
LaSalle shall repair Outfall 006, prior to performing
stream inspections, so the flow can properly enter the
Little Vermilion River.
6.
During this temporary exception period the City of
LaSalle,
in consultation with the Agency,
shall:
a.
Design and construct improvements at CSOs 006 and
004
(5th Street and Marquette Street)
to
permanently eliminate the dry weather overflows at
these locations by March
1,
1995.
b.
Complete a Phase II report as outlined in 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 375.203 and submit to the Agency by May
15,
1995.
Such stream inspections shall be
conducted during one “high” water condition and at
least one “low” water condition.
Inspections
should be conducted shortly after CSO events;
c.
Complete and submit to the Agency a Plan of Study
(POS)
for a Phase III Evaluation at each CSO
location by December
1,
1994.
Such report may be
limited to the requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code
375.204, subsections
(a)
and
(b), but shall
6
include
diurnal
sampling
for
dissolved
oxygen
at
appropriate locations on the Little Vermilion
River and the I
& N Canal during the months of
June,
July, and August,
1992.
As part of the
Phase III report sampling at CSO 007 (Eleventh
Street)
shall be performed for heavy metals and
total hardness.
Should the presence of heavy
metals be affirmed, then upstream and downstream
sampling for heavy metals and total hardness shall
be conducted within 24 hours of an overflow event
at CSO 007.
Comments will follow the Agency’s
review of the POS and are to be incorporated into
the Phase III work;
d.
There shall be no expansion of the service area
tributary to the combined sewers except for
residential hookups that do not exceed 15
population equivalents as defined in 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 301.345, unless authorized by the Board upon
a petition for modification of this order;
e.
The City shall continue its monitoring of the
combined sewer overflows on a weekly basis and
after every major rainfall and make written
reports thereon and take corrective actions as
necessary.
In addition, the City shall monitor
the proposed “emergency” outfall on a weekly basis
and after every major rainfall and prepare written
reports thereon to determine whether the outfall
is in fact used on an emergency basis;
f.
This 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;
g.
This grant of exception is not to be construed as
affecting the enforceability of any provisions of
this exception,
other Board regulations, or the
Environmental Protection Act;
7.
The conditional extension of the current CSO Exception
shall terminate automatically if LaSalle does not
adhere to the deadlines detailed in the Board’s order
in this matter.
8.
The Board will retain jurisdiction in this matter.
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby cer,tifX that the ab9ve opinion and order was
adopted on the
~
day of
___________________,
1994,
by a
vote of
~.
—o
.
I
L ~
Dorothy M. G~n, Clerk
Illinois Pol$ltion Control Board