ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August

9,

1990

IN

THE MATTER OF:

PETITION OF

THE

CITY OF

)

AS 90-1

JACKSONVILLE FOR ADJUSTED

)

(Adjusted Standard)

STANDARD FROM

35

ILL.

ADM.

CODE SECTION 306.305(b)

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J. Anderson):

This matter comes before the Board upon the filing

of

a

petition for an adjusted standard by the City of Jacksonville

(“Jacksonville”).

Jacksonville

seeks relief from

the

disinfection requirement

for post—first

flush flows

that

is

contained in

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 306.305(b).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 31,

1990, Jacksonville

filed its petition

for an

adjusted standard and a motion requesting

leave

to file

a limited

number of

copies of

the appendices

to its petition.

On February

22,

1990,

the Board issued an order accepting Jacksonville’s

adjusted standard petition and directing

it

to comply with the

with the publication requirement contained

in 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

106.711.

The Board also directed the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency

(“Agency”)

to file a response to

the petition

in accordance with

35

Ill. Adm. Code 106.714.

On March

8,

1990,

the Board issued a second order granting Jacksonville’s motidn

requesting

leave

to file

a limited number of copies of

the

appendices

to its petition.

On March

31,

1990,

the Agency filed

its response, suPporting the adjusted standard.

No hearing

was

held.

BACKGROUND

The City of Jacksonville

is located

in the central part of

Morgan County,

Illinois, approximately

35 miles west

of

Springfield.

The City owns and operates

a wastewater

treatment

plant

(“WWTP”)

that employs approximately

10 full—time employees

and serves approximately 20,083 residents.

The plant processes

a

maximum of

15 million gallons per day and discharges

into

the

Mauvaise Terre Creek

(“Creek”),

a tributary of the Illinois

River.

The

~T?

consists of

an activated sludge process,

including

an.

influent pump station,

grit

removal facilities,

a

primary clarifier,

contact

stabilization biological

trear:r~ent

facilities,

final clarifiers,

chlorination facilities,

aerobic

and anaerobic sludge dicestion

facilities, and grit and

sludoe

storage

tanks.

At present, Jackscnville’s WWTP does

nct have

the

canaciry to handle the combined

se~~eroverflows

(“CSOs)

that

occur

during

heavy

precipitation.

This

results

in

much

of CSOs

being

discharged

to

the

Cree

untreated.

1

1!.-—

13

---

—2—

In

late 1983, Jacksonville

and the Village of

South

Jacksonville

(“South Jacksonville”) submitted

a Facilities

Planning Area Study to the Agency.*

The study proposed treatment

facilities

that would comply with

the Board’s CSO regulations.

After

the plan was approved, Jacksonville conducted additional

flow monitoring and sampling.

It then submitted

a Basis of

Design

for

c~TWTPand CSO improvements

to the Agency

in July of

1987.

On November

2,

1988,

the Agency approved the final Basis

of Design for

the improvements.

Jacksonville then submitted

the

final design

to the Agency on January

12,

1989.

The Agency

approved the design on May

10,

1989.

Jacksonville has continued

to investigate CSO treatment alternatives,

however, because

the

subsequent construction and annual operating cost estimates

for

the proposed project were much higher than the original estimates

and because Jacksonville lacked

the financial

resources

to

construct the project as originally planned.

Discussions between

Jacksonville and the Agency are ongoing regarding the appropriate

scope of Jacksonville’s CSO treatment

facility improvements.

Concurrent with the above actions, Jacksonville,

South

Jacksonville, and the Agency were negotiating

a consent decree

to

establish enforceable effluent limitations and compliance

schedules

for the WWTP and CSO facility improvements.

Pursuant

to the consent decree, Jacksonville agreed

to improve

its WWTP,

and South Jacksonville agreed

to cease using

its WWTP and

to

connect

its sewer collection system to Jacksonville’s WWTP.

Section VII.C of the consent decree requires Jacksonville

to

design and construct the CSO project according

to

a compliance

schedule set forth therein.

People of the State of

Illinois

v.

~~yof

Jacksonville and Village of South Jacksonville,

No.

89—

CH—2

(Ill.

Cir.

Ct.

7th Car.,

February 22,

1989).

The consent

decree also requires Jacksonville

to reevaluate

the proposed CSO

project

to

reduce costs without compromising environmental

protection by either complying with the Board’s CSO regulations

or

by petitioning

the Board

for

relief

from the regulations.

It

was agreed

that any such evaluation would

not

hinder the progress

of the

CSO

project.

Jacksonville has already constructed several improvements

to

its wastewater

collection system to reduce CSO.

Originally,

the

collection system contained

six CSOs; however,

four

CSOs have

been closed and only

two remain.**

One active CSO

is located at

an abandoned NWTP adjacent

to

the existing Jacksonville

WWTP,

and

*

South Jacksonville

is located directly south

of

Jacksonville

and has

a population of aoprcxinately 3,346 residents.

It

owns

and operates

a WWTP consisting

ci two parallel stabilization

lagoons.

**

An additional CSO exists between

the South Jacksonville and

Jacksonville wastewater

collection systems.

This CSO

will

be

eliminated as part

Of

South Jacksonville’s compliance project

pursuant

to the consent decree.

I

I

1

-

I

---

—3—

the other active CSO

is located at

an abandoned WWTP on the

Southeast side of Jacksonville.

Untreated wastewater

is

discharged from these

two CSO5

to the Creek when the Jacksonville

WWTP reaches hydraulic capacity.

Jacksonville

is

currently

constructing

the

WWTP improvements

pursuant

to

the

consent

decree

with

the

Agency,

at

a

projected

cost

of ten million dollars.

Jacksonville’s ~WT?

improvements

consist of

the following:

modification of the screen channel and

influent

pump

station,

improvement

of

the

aerated

grit

basin,

construction of

a grit and solids handling system,

an upgrade of

the primary clarifier system, expansion of the aeration capacity,

conversion of

the activated sludge process from contact

stabilization to the complete mix process, installation

of

new

secondary clarifiers,

provision of postaeration when necessary,

replacement of

the primary sludge pumps, construction

of

a new

secondary sludge pump station, construction of

a new anaerobic

digester and control building,

and construction

of buildings

for

laboratory, maintenance, and chlorination control equipment.

As previously stated,

Jacksonville is

in the desicin stage of

its CSO project.

The proposed CSO treatment facility will

collect

the combined flow at

the two existing overflow points and

pump

it

to overflow treatment facilities adjacent

to the

Jacksonville WWTP.

The CSO project,

as currently designed, will

consist of pumping stations,

force mains, first flush storage

tanks, primary clarifiers, and chlorine contact basins.

In

implementing

the proposed CSO improvements,

Jacksonville will

be

providing

full treatment and disinfection

for all dry weather

flows and the first

flush of

a twelve—month recurrence

storm,

as

well as primary treatment

for a volume of CSO equal

to ten times

the average dry weather

flow,

as required by Board regulations.

The only difference

between the proposed CSO project

arid the

Board

regulations

is

that Jacksonville

is proposing not

to

chlorinate

CSO beyond the first

flush.

This petition represents Jacksonville’s decision,

pursuant

to

the consent

decree,

to seek an adjustment

to the CSO

regulations

to eliminate

the disinfection requirements for post—

first flush

flows.

REGULATORY

FRAME;cOREK

The

Board’s

CSO

regulations

are

contained

in

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

306.

They

were

amended

in

RSl—l7,

51

?CB 383, March

24,

1983.

Section

306.305

provides

as

follows:

Section

306.305

Treatment

oi Overflows and Bypasses

All

combined

sewer

overflows

and

treatment

plant

bypasses

shall

be

given

sufficient

treatment

to

prevent

collution,

or

the vioiation of appl~caolewater

stanciarcs unless an

except ion has been granted by

the Soard pursuant

to Subpart

D.

II

-‘+~

1

‘~‘-‘

---

•1

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 average dry weather

flow for the

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.

As

can

be

seen

in

suhsection(d) above, Subpart

D of

35 Ill.

Adm.

Code

306

allows

a discharger

to file a petition for

exception

from

the

treatment

requirements

contained

in

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

306.305.

Because

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

306.373

states that

the

Board

shall

not

accept

a

petition

for

exception

after

January

1,

1986, however, Jacksonville has decided to use the Board’s

adjusted

standard

procedure

pursuant

to

28.1

of

the

Act

to obtain

an

“exception”

from

the

Board’s CSO treatment

requirements.

Section

28.1

of

the

Act

authorizes

the

Board

to

grant

adjusted

standards

if

a

petitioner

carl

justify

such

an

adjustment.

Section

28.1(b)

applies

if

the

level

of

justification

needed

for

an

adjusted

standard

can

be

found

in

the

rule

from

which

the

adjustment

is

sought

(i.e.

the

rule

of

general

applicability).

If

the

rule

of

general

applicability

does

not

contain

a

specific

level

of

justification,

however,

Section

28.1(c)

of

the

Act

sets

forth

the

burden

of

proof

that

a

petitioner

must

meet

in

order

to

obtain

an

adjusted

standard.

While

not

necessarily

quantified,

the

substantive

provisions

in

the

Subpart

D

exception

procedures

do

express, cumulatively,

the

levels

of

justification

required

to

support

an

exception

to

the rules

of general applicability.

While

the deadline has

passed

for the filing of petitions pursuant

to the procedural

mechanisms

in Subpart

D,

the justification requirements contained

in

the rule remain

in effect.

The adjusted standard provisions

of Section

28.1 of

the Act were enacted

after the Board had

created

the

CSO

exception

procedure

and,

in

fact,

reflect

many

aspects of

the CSO exception ~rocedure.

Section 28.1 authorizes

petitions

for what are now called adjusted standards,

including

CSO ‘exceptions”,

and the Board has adopted the required

procedures

that now may be used

in

lieu

of

the discontinued CSO

II

!~.-

1 .‘~O

---

—5—

exception procedures.

Thus,

because

the level

of justification

here

is contained in the rule of general applicability,

Section

28.1(b)

applies, and Jacksonville quite properly utilized the

substantive requirements

in Subpart

D to justify

its proposed

adjusted standard.

PROPOSED ADJUSTED STANDARD

As previously

stated, Jacksonville requests

that the Board

grant

it

an adjustment

from the disinfection

requirement imposed

by Section 306.305(b).

This adjustment would allow Jacksonville

not

to chlorinate

the post—first flush CSO produced by

a twelve—

month recurrence storm.

In other words,

Jacksonville

is asking

for relief after

it

fully treats and disinfects all dry weather

and first

flush

flows of

a one—year recurrence storm and after

it

provides primary treatment

to additional

flows

of ten times

the

average dry weather

flow.

Jacksonville proposes the following adjusted standard

in its

petition:

The

City

of

Jacksonville

is

granted

an

adjustment

to

the disinfection requirement

of

35

Ill.

Ad.

Code 306.305(b).

This adjustment

is

conditioned

upon

the

construction

of

CSO

facilities

sufficient

to

provide

(1)

full

treatment and disinfection

of

all dry weather

flows

and

the

first

flush

of

a

twelve—month

recurrence

storm

(except

for

November

1

through

April

30

during

which

the

City’s

seasonal

disinfection

exemption

applies),

and

(2)

primary treatment,

but no disinfection,

of

additional

flows of

ten

times

the average dry

weather

flow.

TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY AND ECONOMIC REASONABLENESS

Jacksonville states

that

its proposed adjusted standard

is

primarily

justified

by

the

fact

that

it

is technologically

infeasible

to chlorinate post—first

flush CSOs.

Jacksonville

claims that

there are

four

reasons why the installation of post—

first

flush chlorination facilities

to disinfect

the treated CSO

effluent

is technologically

infeasible.

First, Jacksonville

states that

it

is difficult

to achieve and maintain the required

fecal coliform reduction rates and residual chlorine

levels on a

consistent basis because

the CSO facility effluent fluctuates

significantly

in terms

of

flow,

suspended solids,

and fecal

coliform concentration.

Second,

because CSOs occur

intermittently and vary

in

rate,

volume,

and duration,

Jacksonville argues that

it

is difficult

to accurately adjust the

chlorine flow rate to reduce

fecal coliform levels without

discharging effluent

with

excessive

residual chlorine

concentration.

Third,

Jncksonv~lle

states

that

the

variationn

in

total

suspended solids, organic and

inorganic

comuounds,

and

11

-~

—•

1

-‘~

I

---

—b

—

fecal coliform concentrations affect the chlorine demand of

the

wastewater and that

the problem

is exacerbated by the fact that

there is

a fifteen minute time delay before the effect of

a

chlorine flow adjustment

is

seen.

Finally, Jacksonville argues

that,

even

if appropriate chlorine levels can

be maintained,

chlorination cannot disinfect many of

the fecal coliforms

entering

the chlorine contact basin because

the primary

clarification process

is not designed to allow all

the solids to

settle out

of the CSO effluent.

As

a result,

the chlorine cannot

penetrate beyond the surface of the remaining suspended solids to

neutralize

the coliform contained therein.

The protected

fecal

coliforms are then released when

the materials disintegrate

downstream.

Jacksonville also claims that the proposed adjusted standard

is economically reasonable.

Jacksonville retained Casler,

Houser

& Hutchison,

Inc., Consulting Engineers

(“CHH”)

to consider

design alternatives

for CSO improvements.

Jacksonville states

that total cost

for full compliance with the Board’s regulations

will be $8,525,000.

The annualized capital

cost and annualized

operations and maintenance costs will be $1,001,722 and $98,000,

respectively.

The eliminatiorl

of disinfection

at

the CSO

facilities,

however, would

save Jacksonville $627,000

in capital

costs and $12,000

in annual operating and maintenance costs,

for

a cost

savings

off approximately eight percent of

the equivalent

annual project

cost.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

In addition

to arguing

that compliance with the regulations

is

technically infeasible,

costly,

and,

at best, only marginally

beneficial, Jacksonville also maintains that there will be

no

adverse environmental impact resulting from the discharge.

In

reviewing the environmental impact of eliminating disinfection,

CHH analyzed the fecal coliform levels downstream of

the

discharge point and concluded that

the levels exceed the 200 per

100 milliliter

(“ml”)

fecal

coliforni water quality standard of

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 302.209.

Evidently,

the stream gauging station

downstream from Jacksonville,

at Merritt,

Illinois has recorded

fecal coliform levels

that ranged from

90 per

100 ml

to 140,000

per 100 ml*.

The data represents

the combined impact of

Jacksonville’s CSOs and the direct runoff from non—point sources

because

the above readings were taken when

no other CSO

facilities

were

in service.

When CHH modeled

this data,

it found

that,

at the time

of

the highest

fecal colifor:n levels,

Jacksonville’s

CSOs

contributed

a~proximately

97,000

per

100

ml

and the direct

runoff contributed aDDroximately 43,000

per

100

ml.

CHH

also

discovered

that

Jacksonville’s

fecal

coliform

contribution

will drop over 73,000

per

100

ml

if

the proposed CSO

*

Jacksonville,

in

its

Adjusted

Standard

Petition,

incorrectly

cites

the

fecal coliform levels

as

ranging

from

90

to 140,000

mg,1?.

It

-~--

1

-‘

---

project

is completed without disinfection beyond the first

flush.

Based on the above information, Jacksonville argues that

although the proposed CSO project’s dry weather and first flush

flows, as well as

the primary treatment

of additional

flows,

will

significantly reduce

fecal

coliform levels,

the chlorination of

the post—first

flush

flows

will

not

create

any

significant

additional

reductions

in light

of

the technical difficulties with

chlorination beyond the first

flush.

Jacksonville

also

states

that

chlorination

may

have

a

negative impact on the Creek because of

the difficulty

to achieve

the required fecal coliform reduction rates and residual chlorine

levels on

a consistent basis.

Evidently,

the inability

to

accurately

adjust

the

chlorine

rate

results

in

either

too

little

chlorine,

making

disinfection

even

more

ineffective,

or

excess

chlorine, which may harm the Creek

by having

a negative effect on

certain

aquatic

wildlife.

Jacksonville

argues

that

elimination

of

the

chlorination

requirement,

on

the other hand,

should

increase

the

health

and

diversity

of

some

fish

populations

in

the

Creek.

As

for

the

hul-nan

health

risks,

Jacksonville

surveyed

forty

local

residents

in

1988

to

determine

how

the

Creek

is

used.

The

results

indicate

that

there

is

little or

no primary contact

use

of

the Creek.

Specifically, the survey indicates that no one

uses the Creek as a source of personal drinking

or non—potable

wash water, and only

a limited number of people use the Creek

for

crop irrigation, livestock watering,

or

for recreational purposes

such as fishing or swimming.

In support of

its contention

that

there

is little primary contact

use

of the Creek, Jacksonville

also completed a Site Access Point Survey which indicates

that

the majority

off the access points adjacent

to the Creek provide

little access to the general public.

Based on the above,

Jacksonville concludes

that chlorination would

not significantly

reduce the health risks of primary contact activities

in the

Creek because even existing CSOs do not appear to have a

significant impact on stream use given

the minimal primary

contact uses especially during

arid after CSOs.

Finally, Jacksonville argues that although

no CSO

improvement can make the Creek

safe

for primary contact use,

the

proposed CSO project, even without chlorination, will

significantly improve

the Creek’s water quality.

In

support

of

this contention, Jacksonville Doints

to the CSO Report that

indicates

that

the proposed CSO project will significantly

decrease

the frequency and total volume of CSOs.

The project

will reduce the average number

of annual overflow events from

21

to

3.9, and the total yearly overflow from 46.2 million gallons

to 764,000 gallons.

The project will also allow natural

processes

to eliminate

unnatural bottom deoosi:s, minimize or

eliminate

odors,

arid curtail me c~scnar-~eor r~oat~ngmater:al

through

the

two CSOs.

11

•‘~

-

-

1

‘+

~

---

CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL LAW

35 Ill.

Adm.

Code 306.305 implements Section

13

of

the

Illinois Environmental Protection Act

(“Act”),

Ill.

Rev.

Stat.

1989,

oh.

111+,

par.

1013,

and the Board’s water quality

standards that were developed pursuant

to the federal Clean Water

Act,

33 U.S.C.

1251 et

sea.

No corresponding federal

regulation

exists.

Moreover,

federal regulations exempt discharges from CSO

systems from federal treatment requirements.

As

a result,

CSO

treatment facilities are regulated by the states rather than the

federal authorities.

Therefore,

this proposal does

not conflict

with federal

law.

AGENCY RECOMMENDATION

The Agency supports Jacksonville’s petition

for an adjusted

standard based on

its view that the chlorination of the excess

flows up

to ten times

the dry weather flow

is

a technically

infeasible and an economically unreasonable method to accomplish

disinfection.

Specifically,

the Agency states that any benefits

derived

from chlorination of

the excess flows beyond the first

flush are substantially outweighed by the significant additional

costs associated with an additional chlorination system.

The

Agency even goes

so far

as to state

that

it has no reason

to

believe chlorination

of the flows beyond the first flush will

produce any quantitative or qualitative benofits or have

a

significant impact

on the fecal coliform levels

in the Creek.

Although the Agency disagrees with Jacksonville’s assertion

that

there

is

no substantial primary contact uses

in certain areas on

the Creek,

it notes

that there

is

no evidence

that

the activities

occur when there are CSOs during heavy precipitation.

The Agency suggests that Jacksonville’s proposed adjusted

standard language be amended, however, because

it conditions

the

adjusted standard on full compliance with

the remaining

provisions of

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 306.305(b).

The Agency notes

that

such a conditional standard

is meaningless because,

by its

own

terms,

the

adjusted

standard

pertains

only

to

the

disinfection requirement

for post—first

flush flows

and not

to

the other requirements of Section 306.305.

Thus,

the Agency

proposes

that

the following adjusted standard language be used:

The

City

off

Jacksonville

is

granted

an

adjustment

to

the disinfection

requirement

of

35

Ill.P~dm. Code

306.305(b).

This

adjustment

allows

the

City

of

Jacksonville

to

discharge

combined sewer

overflows after

the first

flush

without disinfecting

such flows.

BOARD DISCUSSION

Based on the information before

it,

the Board

finds

that

Jacksonville

has made

a sufficient showing

of economic

unreasonableness,

technical

infeasibility,

and negligible

I l-’---1-’~-’-

---

—9—

environmental impact

to

justify an adjusted standard.

Specifically, Jacksonville has shown

that the disinfection of

flows beyond the first

flush

is technologically infeasible,

costly, and will have

a marginal environmental benefit,

if not

a

negative impact,

on the

receiving stream.

The technological

difficulties arise from the fact that CSOs occur

intermittently

and vary

in terms of

rate,

volume,

duration,

total suspended

solids,

inorganic and organic compounds, and fecal coliform

concentration.

These factors,

in

turn,

affect the chlorine

demand of the water and make

it difficult

to maintain the

required fecal coliform reduction rates,

residual chlorine

levels, and an accurate chlorine flow rate.

Even

if appropriate

chlorine levels can be maintained,

chlorination cannot disinfect

many of

the

fecal coliforms entering

the chlorine contact basin

because the primary clarification process

is not

designed to allow all the solids

to settle out of the CSO

effluent.

Finally,

the Board notes

that

the accompanying order will

contain the Agency’s proposed adjusted standard language rather

than Jacksonville’s.

As the Agency correctly points out,

it

is

unnecessary for the Board

to specify that its grant

of relief

is

conditioned upon Jacksonville’s full compliance with the

remaining provisions of

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 306.305(b)

because the

adjusted standard, by its own

terms, pertains only

to the post—

first

flush flow desinfection requirement

in 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

306.305(b).

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of

fact and

conclusions of

law in this matter.

ORDER

Pursuant

to the authority of Section

28.1 of the

Environmental Protection

Act,

the Board here by adopts

the

following adjusted standard.

This standard becomes effective on

the date of this order.

The City of Jacksonville

is granted an adjustment

to the

disinfection requirement

of

35

Ill.

Adm. Code 306.305(b).

This adjustment allows the City of Jacksonville

to discharge

combined sewer overflows

after

the first

flush without

disinffecting such flows.

Section

41 of

the Illinois Environmental Protection Act,

Ill.

Rev.

Stat.

1989,

ch.

lll~,

ear.

1041,

provides

for appeal

of

final orders

of

the Board within

35 days.

The Rules

off

the

Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.

IT

IS SO ORDERED.

Board

Member

J.

Dumelle

concurred.

11 -‘--1

-‘~~

---

I,

Dorothy

M. Gunn, Clerk of

the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

hereby certif~that the a~pveOpinion and Order was

adopted on the

5~—

day of

~

,

1990,

by

a vote

of

~-~7

.

Dorothy

M.

G/unn, Clerk

Illinois Pc~lutionControl Board

ii 4

14

(~