ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June 23,
1994
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
PETITION OF THE CITY OF
)
PERU FOR EXCEPTION TO THE
)
PCB 86-1
COMBINED
SEWER
OVERFLOW
)
(CSO Exception)
REGULATIONS
)
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by G.
T. Girard):
This matter is before the Board on the City of Peru’s
(Peru)
October 24,
1991, amended petition for exception to the combined
sewer overflow
(CSO) regulations found at 35 Ill. Adm. Code
306.305 (a) and
(b).
The Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(Agency) filed
a response to the amended petition on April
22,
1994.
The Agency recommends that the Board grant Peru’s
request for exception from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.305(a), as it
relates to first flush storm flows, and from 35 Ill. Adm. Code
306.305(b), subject to conditions.
For the reasons set forth below the Board will grant Peru’s
request for exception from the CSO regulations subject to certain
conditions.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January
2,
1986, the Board received a request from Peru
for a permanent exception to the CSO regulations and on January
8,
1986, the Board accepted that petition.
A public hearing was
held on June 4,
1986 and the Agency submitted comments on
September 22,
1986.’
On April
1,
1987, the Board granted a
temporary exception to Peru with conditions and retained
jurisdiction over the proceeding.
The April
1,
1987 opinion
discusses in extensive detail the level of justification Peru was
required to meet and finds that Peru met the level of
justification.
(April
1, 1987 0 & 0 at 3; 77 PCi 13.)
Further,
the April
1,
1987 opinion details the compliance options and the
cost effectiveness of each option.
(April
1,
1987 0
& 0 at 6-7;
77 PCB 16—17.)
The conditions
set, forth in the April
1,
1987 order required
Peru:
to construct and operate improvements by July
1,
1988;
to
continue street and sewer cleaning; to continue monitoring; and
to submit an amended petition by March
1,
1990.
(April
1,
1987 0
& 0 at 9; 77 PCB 19.)
On November 19,
1989,
the Board granted a
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 Peru for Exce~tion~
Combined Sewer Overflow Reaulations,
77 PCB 11, PCi 86—1) which is
hereby incorporated by reference in this opinion.
2
joint motion extending the construction deadline to November 1,
1989.
On March 8,
1990,
the Board granted a joint motion
extending the date to file an amended petition to November 1,
1991.
On October 24, 1991, the City of Peru filed an amended
petition for a CSO exception.
The Agency filed its response to
the amended petition on April 22,
1994.
BACKGROUND
Peru has a 1990 census population of 9,032 which is a
reduction of 1,584 from the 1980 census.
Local Peru industries
include Maze Nail Company, G & 0 Radiator Manufacturing Company,
Huntsman Chemical Company and Unytite,
Inc.
(Am. Pet at 2.)
Peru is located along the Illinois River and some of the
discharges from Peru’s overflow is discharged to the Illinois
River.
(Am. Pet, at 2-3.)
Since the Board granted the temporary exception in 1987,
Peru has completed construction improvements to the sewage
treatment plant and the collection system.
(Ag. Rec. at 5.)
The
construction program at the wastewater treatment plant included
the placement of a mechanically—raked bar screen at the head end
of the plant and the installation of grit removal facilities
following screening.
(Am. Pet. at 7.)
The construction program
also increased the secondary pumping and treatment capacities.
(Id.)
Work on the sewage collection system included
rehabilitation of portions of the trunk sewers in areas where
they were adjacent to or under a steam bed as well as
improvements to diversions chambers and overflows.
(Id.)
As a
result of the construction program the incidence of overflows has
been greatly reduced and the appearance of the discharge stream
at the overflow has improved.
(Am. Pet. at 4.)
Peru has also completed two post—construction studies,
City
of Peru. Post-MCP Construction. CSO Study.
1990 (hereinafter 1990
Study)
(Pet. Exh. A) and City of Peru.
Illinois. P0stMCP
Constriction. CSO Procedure. Phase II Preliminary Stream
Inspection
(hereinafter Phase II).
(Pet.
Exh.
B.)
Both studies
were forwarded to the Agency by Peru.
The 1990 study indicates
that the first flush rate and volume from the system has been
reduced from 182 MGD to 99 MGD and the first flush volume has
been reduced from 8.25 MG to 3.79 MG.
(Am. Pet. at 6; Pet
Exh.
A
at 14.)
The Phase II study indicates that there “are no unusual
problems with the streams or the stream beds within the City”.
(Am. Pet. at 8.)
The Agency, after reviewing the 1990 study and the Phase II
study, notified Peru’s consulting engineer of five concerns.
Those five concerns were:
3
1.
Solids had accumulated adjacent to outfall
IR-1 and a pool, orange in color, had
developed below outfall IR-3;
2.
Water levels had been observed above the stop
planks on three separate occasions at the
diversion structure for outfall IR-9A;
3.
WR-3
had activated only once during the two-
year study period, indicating that it might
be possible to eliminate the outfall
altogether;
4.
Infiltration apparently occurring at outfalls
ER-2
and IR-7A; the City should eliminate the
infiltration and consider permanently sealing
these outfalls along with outfalls
WR-4, WR-
4A,
WR—6,
ER—lA,
ER—C—5, ER—2A, IR—5,
IR—8,
and IR-9; and
5.
The City should provide a description of the
work done to correct the problems with the
stop planks at outfall IR-1OA.
(Ag. Rec. at 6; Pet.
Exh.
C.)
AMENDED PETITION
In response to the concerns raised by the Agency, Peru
stated that it plans to construct a hand—raked bar screen at CSO
IR-1 and to extend outfall to the normal low water line of the
Illinois River.
(Am. Pet. at 9.)
Peru further plans to
eliminate the infiltration at CSO IR-3 and to extend the outfall
to the low water line of the Illinois River.
(Am. Pet, at 10.)
The Agency recommends that Peru collect data at these two
outfalls after completion of construction.
(Ag. Rec. at 7.)
Peru also responded that the high water levels at outfall
IR-9A are likely caused by surcharging of the combined sewer in a
trunk sewer tributary to the outfall during heavy rainfalls.
(Am. Pet. at 10.)
The high water levels are usually short-term
and it has caused no problems with basement flooding, according
to Peru.
(Am. Pet. at 10-11.)
The Agency states that it “now
considers the surcharging of outfall IR-9A to be moot”.
(Ag.
Rec. at 8.)
Peru answered the Agency’s concerns regarding discharges at
CSO ER-2 and CSO IR-7A by explaining that the trickle of water
“is obviously groundwater, which causes no problem to the
receiving stream”.
(Am. Pet. at 11.)
Peru proposes to collect
samples from each of these overflows and have them analyzed.
(Id.)
The Agency states that it is concerned about possible
human contact in the vicinity of these discharges.
(Ag. Rec. at
8.)
The Agency therefore, recommends that these be monitored and
eliminated if possible.
(Id.)
The Agency also agrees that the
4
list of possible CSO outfalls to be eliminated, provided by Peru
in its petition, should be eliminated.
(Id.)
Peru indicates that the problem with the stop planks in
outfall IR-1OA was that the planks were loosely fitted within the
stop plank grooves.
(Am.
Pet. at 11.)
Peru further indicated
that the problem had been corrected.
(Id.)
The Agency
recommends that inspections be required of all diversion
structures equipped with stop planks.
(Ag. Rec. at 9.)
Peru also indicated that the improvements made by the city
have resulted in 20 of the 27 CSO outfalls showing no incidence
of overflow for a once-in—one year rain.
(Pet.
Exh A
at 9.)
Further the outfalls have all experienced a drop in the rate of
overflows except one.
(Id.)
The 1990 study also states “coupled
with this lower incidence of overflow,
is the fact that the
condition of the receiving streams indicate a vast improvement
over the previous study.”
(Id.)
In addition to the improved quality of the receiving
streams, Peru’s 1990 “Annual Operations Report” for the sewage
treatment plant shows an average annual effluent BOD of 7 mg/i
and an average annual suspended solids of
13
iug/l
for the year.
(Am. Pet. at 9.)
No enforcement actions have been brought
against Peru for water quality violations.
(Id.)
AGENCY,RECOMMENDATION
The Agency has recommended that Peru be granted a permanent
exception to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.305(a) as it relates to first
flush storm flows,
and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 306
•
305(b), subject to
specific conditions.
Those conditions are:
a.
The City shall construct an additional hand-
raked bar screen chamber for CSO IR—l as
described in the amended petition and extend
the outfall pipe to the normal low water line
of the Illinois River.
b.
The City shall eliminate the infiltration at
CSO IR-3 and extend the outfall pipe to the
low water line of the Illinois River.
c.
The City shall commit to definite completion
dates for the projects in paragraphs
(a) and
(b)
above.
d.
The City shall submit a plan for inspection,
monitoring, and sampling of CSO IR-1 and CSO
IR-3 and for monitoring CSO5
WR-3, WR-4, WR-
4A,
WR—6,
ER—lA,
ER—2, ER—C5,
ER—2A,
IR—5,
IR-7A,
IR-8, and IR-9 to the Agency no later
5
than three months after the Board’s decision
in this matter.
This plan shall provide for
the collection of sufficient data to
determine the post—construction compliance
with water quality standards for CSO IR-l and
CSO IR-3 and to determine if any of the
outfalls listed in this paragraph can be
permanently sealed.
e.
If CSO ER-2 and CSO IR-7A can not be
permanently sealed, the City shall take
whatever action is necessary to eliminate the
infiltration discharges from these outfalls.
f.
The City shall report its findings and
recommendations to the Agency within six
months of the conclusion of the monitoring
program in paragraph
(d) above.
g.
The city shall monitor its combined sewer
overflows and all diversion structures
containing stop planks on at least a weekly
basis and after every rainfall and make
written reports thereon and take corrective
action as necessary.
b.
The City shall continue street and sewer
cleaning efforts so as to minimize the
bypassing of solid materials.
i.
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 with water quality
standards.
(Ag. Rec. at 10—li.)
DISCUSSION
The Board, in granting the temporary CSO exception in 1987,
expressed concern as to “whether the proposed improvements will
adequately control any environmental impacts”.
(April
1,
1987 0
& 0 at 7;
77 PCB 17.)
The information provided in the amended
petition clearly indicates that the improvements have controlled
environmental impacts.
However, the Board shares the concern the
Agency has expressed over CSO ER-2 and CSO IR-7A.
Therefore, the
Board agrees that elimination of these two outfalls or at a
minimum the elimination of infiltration is necessary.
6
The Board has previously determined that Peru has met the
level of justification necessary to be granted an CSO exception.
(~
April 1, 1987 0
& 0 at 3; 77 PCB 13.)
The temporary nature
of the CSO exception was necessary to insure that the
construction plan would be sufficient.
The Board finds that the
amended petition sufficiently establishes that the environmental
impact of a permanent exception will be minimal.
Therefore,
the
• Board grants Peru the requested CSO exception, with conditions.
CONCLUSION
Peru has requested a permanent CSO exception and the Agency
has recommended that it be granted with specific conditions.
The
Board agrees that certain conditions are necessary to insure the
continued quality of the streams into which the overflows
discharge.
Therefore, the Board will grant Peru’s request for
exception from 35 Ill. Ada. Code 306.305(a),
as it relates to
first flush storm flows, and from 35 Ill. Ada. Code 306.305(b)
subject to conditions.
ORDER
The Board hereby grants the city of Peru’s request for an
exception from 35 Ill. Ada. Code 306.305(a),
as it relates to
first flush storm flows, and from 35 Ill. Ada. Code 306.305(b),
subject to the following conditions:
1.
The City shall construct an additional hand-raked
bar screen chamber for CSO IR-1 as described in
the amended petition and extend the outfall pipe
to the normal low water line of the Illinois
River.
2.
The City shall eliminate the information at CSO
IR-3 and extend the outfall pipe to the low water
line of the Illinois River.
3.
The City shall commit to definite completion dates
for the projects in paragraphs
(a) and
(b)
above.
4.
The City shall submit a plan for inspection,
monitoring, and sampling of CSO IR-l and CSO IR-3
and for monitoring CSOs
WR-3, WR-4,
WR-4A, WR-6,
ER-lA,
ER-2,
ER-C5, ER-2A, IR-5,
IR-7A,
IR-8, and
IR-9 to the Agency no later than three months
after the Board’s decision in this matter.
This
plan shall provide for the collection of
sufficient data to determine the post—construction
compliance with water quality standards for CSO
IR-l and CSO IR-3 and to determine if any of the
outfalls listed in this paragraph can be
permanently sealed.
7
5.
If CSO ER-2 and CSO IR-7A can not be permanently
sealed, the City shall take whatever action is
necessary to eliminate the infiltration discharges
from these outfalls.
6.
The City shall report its findings and
recommendations to the Agency within six months of
the conclusion of the monitoring program in
paragraph
(d) above.
7.
The City shall monitor its combined sewer overflows and
all diversion structures containing stop planks on at
least a weekly basis and after every rainfall and make
written reports thereon and take corrective action as
necessary.
8.
The City shall continue street and sewer cleaning
efforts so as to minimize the bypassing of solid
materials.
9.
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 with
water quality standards.
10.
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, the Clean Water Act, or any other
applicable federal regulation.
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. Ada. Code 101.246, Motions for Reconsideration.)
8
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that t e above opinion
order was
adopted on the
__________________
day of
___________________
1994, by a vote of
~
—c
Dorothy M. G~4h,Clerk’
Illinois Po(1)Ition
Control Board