ILLINOIS POLLUIION
CONTRL)L BOARD
November
19,
1987
IN
THE MATTER OF:
JOINT PETITION OF THE CITY
OF
)
PCB 85—21~
BELLEVILLE AND THE ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOR EXCEPTION TO THE COMBINED
SEWER OVERFLO~~JREGULATIONS
OPINION AND AMENDED ORDER OF
THE
BOARD
(by J.D.
Dumelle):
This matter comes before the Board upon a December 30,
1985,
Joint Petition for a combined sewer
overflow
(CSO)
exception
filed pursuant
to
35
Ill. Adm.
Code,
Subtitle
C, Chapter
I, Part
306,
Subpart D, by the City
of Belleville
(City)
and the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency).
Petitioners
specifically request exception from 35
Ill. Adm.
Code
306.305(a)
and 306.305(b).
Joint Petitioner,
IEPA, also filed
a Motion For Modification
And Clarification on November
10,
1987,
~~hich the Board nereby
adopts
in this Amended Order.
bc~
A public hearing was held on September
17, 1986
in
Belleville,
Illinois.
No members
of the public were present.
Testimony and evidence was presented
at that
time by witnesses
for both the City and
the
Agency.
At the conclusion
of
tne
nearing Belleville agreed
to tender additional documentation.
On
May 21,
1987 the hearing
officer oröered Belleville
to produce
the additional information.
The City responded
to this
order
on
August 27,
1987.
CSO REGULATIONS
The CSO regulations are set forth
at
35
Ill. Adm. Code
Subtitle
C,
Chapter
I, Part
306.
They were amended
in R81—17,
51
PCB 383,
March 24,
1983.
Section 306.305 provides
as follows:
All
combined
sewer
overflows
and
treatment
plant
bypasses
shall
be
given
sufficient
treatment
to
prevent
pollution,
or
the
violation
of
applicable
water
standards
unless
an
exception
has been
granted
by
the
Board.
Sufficient
treatment
snall
consist
of
the
following:
83—0 1
a)
All
dry
weather
flows,
and
tne
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
tnan
ten
times
tne
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)
snail
be
treated,
in
wnole
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 allows the discharger
to file
a petition for
exception jointly with
the Agency
as Belleville has done.
Such a
Joint Petition must justify
an exception according
to
the
criteria set forth at Section 306.361.
In reviewing wnether
a
joint application justifies
granting,
this Board reviews tne
application evidence and proofs
in conjunction with
35
Iii.
Adm.
Code Section 306.361(a),
wnich requires the submission of
data
concerning receiving stream ratios,
known stream uses,
stream and
side land accessibility,
frequency and extent of overflow events,
and inspections of unnatural deposits,
odors, unnatural floating
materials
or color,
stream morphology and limited chemical
analysis.
Where the Petition fails
to demonstrate
a “minimal impact
exception”
(above)
or where issuance
of an exception would
result
in a modification
of water quality
standards an applicant must
include additional information
as required by
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
Section 306.361(a).
Specifically,
the additional data required
concerns stream sediment analyses,
biological
surveys and stream
chemical analyses.
The City and the Agency believe they have made
a showing
of
the minimal
impact showing pursuant to Section 306.361(a).
S3—02
—-3—
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Belleville
has undertaken several studies
of
its CSO
situation,
the reports
of which nave been submitted
as exhioits
in support of
the Petition.
Those reports
include the
following:
Ex.
41, First Flush Summary;
Ex.
ff2,
Study of
Combined Sewer Overflow;
Ex. #3,
Combined Sewer Overflow
Procedures;
Ex.
44, Municipal Compliance
Plan,
Ex.
#6, Flood
Insurance Study.
The City has also introduced
the Department of
the Army’s
interim report
on Richland Creek
(Ex.
#7) and certain
proposed procedures
for determining compliance
with
the
regulations,
Ex.
45.
IEPA exhibits include
the following:
Ex.
#2, Summary of
Stream Survey;
Ex.
#3, Illinois ~7ater Quality Report,
pp. 12—16,
40, 4l~ an analysis
of the City’s ability
to finance proposed
changes
and accompanying
testimony.
BACKGROUND
The City of Belleville
is located
in St. Clair County on
Illinois Route #159,
4 miles south
of Interstate Route
#64.
The
City, with
a population
of 42,000,
is home
to
a Heileman Brewery,
Peerless
appliance manufacturer, and other
local
industries.
The City owns,
operates and maintains
its own waste water
collection
facilities, with the first collection system
constructed
in
1912.
This was
a combined domestic waste/storm
water system.
Currently,
16,000 users are served by
the City.
There
are four different drainage basins
in the Belleville
area,
but only three
serve as receiving waters
for CSO discharges
(Powdermill,
Schoenberger,
and Ricnland Creeks).
Richland Creek
is the stream most impacted by CSO discharge.
Discharges
to
Powdermill and Schoenberger Creeks have been or will be
eliminated,
which
in this case, means operative only during
excessive
rainfall.
Petitioner provided no stream—flow or
environmental
effects data
for Powdermill
or Schoenberger Creeks.
Data concerning Richland Creek high flows
is as follows:
The ten year
flood
is estimated
to have
a peak discharge
of
3,260
MGD upstream,
and 5,310 MGD downstream of Beileville’s corporate
limits.
(Ex.
#6
p.
6).
This
is nigher
than
the “average
bankfull cnannel
capacity”
of Richiand Creek above and through
the City.
(Ex.
#7 pp. 47—48).
The average flow of Richland
Creek
is 67.2 MGD (USGA Report,
p.
10).
Low flow data for
Richiand Creek
is 2.45 MGD for a 7—day,
10 year
storm event.
The existing wastewater
collection system consists
of
three
separate systems.
The original system is tributary
to wastewater
Treatment Plant No.
1;
the second system (constructed
in
the mid
1960’s)
encompasses completely separate sanitary and storm sewers
83—03
and serves
an area tributary
to wastewater Treatment Plant
No.
2;
and the last system,
which also includes completely separate
sanitary and storm sewers,
is tributary
to wastewater Treatment
Plant No.
3.
In total,
tne City nas approximately
90 miles
of
separate sewers and 50—60 miles
of combined sewers.
The combined
sewers comprise 45
of
the sewer system
into Treatment Plant No.
1
Three
interceptors, having
total capacity of
16 MGD,
transport sewage
to Treatment Plant No.
1, which provides full
treatment
for dry weather
flows,
to
a maximum of
8 MGD;
collection
and storage
of excess flow
up
to 10.5 MGD;
and primary
treatment
with disinfection
for
an additional
8
!4GD.
There are
currently
17 combined sewer overflows.
Previously
there were
40
CSOs but
23 have been
or will
be eliminated.
Eliminated,
in this
case, means only operative during excessive
rainfall. Most
combined sewers
located near Ricnland Creek nave
a combined
capacity
of
20 MGD.
Bypass stormwater
flows from
the
interceptors directly into Richland Creek.
The remaining
combined sewers,
with total capacity of
5 MGD,
are scattered
around the
upper part of
the sewer system and bypass storm flow
to
a storm sewer which discharges
to
a drainage ditch tributary
to Richland Creek.
These overflows
do not operate until
the wet
weather
first flush has passed.
Bypassing begins
at overflows
located near Treatment Plant No.
1 during rains ranging from 0.5
to 1.0
in/hr.
Most
of the upstream overflows will operate
at 1.5
in/hr rainfall;
others rarely operate.
The City’s treatment plant was upgraded
in 1975;
but that
did not include facilities
for nitrification and the required
amount
of CSO treatment.
The City claims that
it has not received tangible inquiry or
complaints
from residents relative
to
its occasional discharges
from overflow points.
The major concern
and complaints
of
the
public are related
to sewer backups.
(Ex.
No.
3
p.
14).
EXISTING CSO IMPACT
The result
of an overflow can
be significant discharge of
pollutants sucn
as organic materials,
nutrients, sediment,
microorganisms,
oil and grease,
metals.
Concentrations are
higher
at
the beginning
of the overflow.
(City Ex. No.
3,
p.
2).
CSO PROPOSAL
The City presented
a
twofold plan intended
to resolve the
existing problem as much
as possible.
The proposal seeks
to
significantly reduce the City’s adverse
impact on Richland Creek,
while avoiding the substantial
costs
of complete compliance
or
separation
of
the combined sewer
system.
83—04
Non—struct~iralrecommendations
included
the use
of periodic
street cleaning,
periodic sewer
flusning
and periodic catch basin
cleaning.
Additionally,
reduction of
excess inflow was proposed
via enforcement
of the City1s ordinance requiring disconnection
of downspouts.
Structural
recommendations
were
as follows:
1.
Bottle—neck eliminations:
There are three sections
of
the interceptor wnere pipe
diameters
are less than that
of the incoming upstream
interceptor
section.
‘rneSe mis—matches create
nydraulic bottle—necks which contribute
to organic and
solids build—up
in
the
interceptor
and
increases
the
overflows.
The
proposal
would
replace
these
sections
of the interceptor with piping
of equal
or
greater
diameter.
The three bottle—necks undergoing
modification are
as follows:
No.
#1, tne l~to
24
in.
interceptor
along West Main Street between 73rd and
58tn streets, will
be replaced with
a 30
in. diameter
line;
no.
#2,
the
18 to 24
in.
interceptor
along ~est
Main Street between
51st and 37th streets will
oe
replaced with a
36
in.
line;
no.
#3,
the 24
to
30
in.
receptor along West
‘A’ Street between 23rd and 15th
streets will be replaced with
a 36
in.
line.
The City
alleges
that elimination of these bottle—necks will
enable more
of
the stormwater runoff,
containing the
greatest quantity of pollutant
load,
to reach
the
proposed relief
interceptor
along Richland Creek.
Municipal Compliance
Plan Chapter
VII,
Section
7.2.7 p.
8.
2.
Surge
relief interceptors
The City has proposed
that three new relief
interceptors
be constructed.
a)
Ricnland Creek Relief Interceptor:
A new relief
interceptor
is proposed
to parallel Richland Creek
from
“G” Street
to the proposed pumping Station
at
Treatment Plant No.
1.
This line will intercept
combined
sewer overflow from thirteen overflow
points.
b)
East Creek
Relief
Interceptor:
A new relief
interceptor
is proposed
to parallel
the existing
24
in. diameter
interceptor from McKinley and Park
streets to
the proposed pumping station near
Treatment Plant
No.
1.
The existing interceptor
will remain in use.
83—05
—6—
c)
East Side Relief Interceptor:
A new relief
interceptor
is proposed
to
intercept
the
combineã
sewer
overflow from site A—I and deliver
it
to
the
proposed pumping station near Treatment Plant No.
1.
A 3
in. diameter
interceptor will parallel
the existing 21
in. diameter
interceptor from
Portland and Mascoutah Avenues
to, then along,
Route
#13,
and then north
of Treatment Plant No.
1
to
Church
Street,
then
finally, south
to the
proposed
first
flush pumping
station near
Treatment
Plant
No.
1.
This
interceptor
will pick
up overflow from the worst overflow site
in
the
system, A—I.
Municipal Compliance Plan Chapter
VII,
Section
7.2.7
p.
9.
3.
Pumping station
and holding basin
The above referenced new pumping station will be
located north
of Richland Creek, and will collect and
pump flow from
the tnree proposed relief
interceptors.
The combined wastewater will
be pumped
to
a proposed holding basin located
soutn
of Richland
Creek,
opposite Treatment Plant No.
1.
The holding
basin will
be approximately tnree
acres and will nold
10.5 million gallons.
This proposed holding basin will
have
a floating aeration system to keep
the pollutants
in suspension.
After
the rain ends, water
in the
holding basin
will
oe treated
at Treatment Plant
No.
1
as capacity becomes available.
During normal flow
conditions, approximately
2 MGD can be pumped
from the
holding
basin.
Municipal Compliance Plan Chapter
VII,
Section
7.2.7
p.
10.
4.
Improvements within the independent overflow points
The remaining overflow points
(with
a lesser discharge
pattern)
are located
at the beginning of
the
Schoenberger and Powdermill Creeks watersheds.
These
overflow
points
will
be
individually
improved.
Also,
various channel
improvements
——
in addition
to paving
of the downstream portion of
the
overflow points
——
will be
implemented
to prevent future debris
deposits.
(Ex.
No.
3
pp.
20—22).
Additionally,
the
City
stated
that
it
is
continuing
with
its
plan
to
eliminate
overflow
points.
The
City
has
expended
a
substantial amount of money
to date and has reduced
the amount of
overflow points
to seventeen from 40.
(R.
60).
This number will
be further reduced
by continuation
of the City’s current plan.
Petitioners admitted that their proposal was an “unorthodox
case”
——
but that 100 percent
of
the first
flusn volume “for
83—06
—7—
essentially any storm” will
be captured
in
tne
first flusn basin
——
“and that
is
irregardless
sic)
of
the size of that storm.”
(R.
63).
ECONOMIC IMPACT
At hearing
the City’s witness,
Mr.
Ike
Karaca
asserted
that
complete
separation
of
the storm sewers from
the sanitary sewers
would
cost
approximately
sixty
million
dollars
$60,000,000).
(R.
18).
Tnis
same
figure
was used
in
the City’s initial
petition.
It
should
be
noted
that
IPC3
regulations
do not
require
a
complete
separation
of
tne two sewer
lines
in order
to
achieve
compliance.
During
hearing
Mr.
Michael
Bowers,
an
employee
of
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Water
Pollution
Control
Division,
testified
on
behalf
of
the
Joint
Petition.
(Agency
Ex.
No.
5).
(R.
74).
Mr.
Bowers
concluded
that his analysis,
utilizing Agency accepted, preliminary review criteria for
affordability
of MCP projects,
indicated that the City’s current
proposal with construction costs
at $11,112,075
is within
its
financial
capability.
(R.
78).
The Agency introduced evidence relative to the City’s
financial ability.
The data indicated,
inter
alia,
that the City
nas
a
5 year average unemployment
rate of 14.3,
and
19.2
of
City residents are over 65 years old;
“there
is a significant
portion
of our population who can afford
no additional sewer
expense.”
(Agency Ex. No.
5).
The
area does include
a brewery
and some industrial manufacturers.
Originally,
the City planned
to proceed with construction
only
if
a grant were obtained.
However,
the City
later promised
to proceed with construction with
or
without financial aid.
CONCLUSION
35
Ill.
Adm.
code
Sections
i06.350,
306.36l(a)(b)
establish
the
criteria
to
be
considered
by
this
Board
in
reviewing
an
application
for
exception
to tne performance criteria established
by this Board.
The Board
finds that Petitioner,
the City of Belleville, has
justified
its
proposal
pursuant
to
35
Ill. Adm. Code Section
306.361(a).
The
proposal
will
eliminate
most
CSO
discharges
into
Richiand
Creek
and
absorb
the
entire
first
flush
volume
——
regardless
of the size
of
a rainfall event.
It should be noted
that Petitioner’s proposal will not fully treat the entire first
flush:
Stormflow in excess
of the 10.5 MGD capacity
of
the
holding basin will only be
given primary treatment with
Cisinfection.
The proposal will also increase Belleville’s
retention and treatment capacity by 10 million gallons.
83—07
—6—
Additionally,
the City,
which
has already eliminated
23 overflow
points will continue
to eliminate more overflow points
——
although there
is
no
firm commitment concerning
the exact
amount.
Overflow into Powdermill
and Schoenberger
Creeks,
from CSO
will
be minimal.
(Response
to H.O. Order
of May 21,
1987
p.
3).
Impacts
at
these
outfalls
were
previously
found
to
be
minimal
(City
t~x. No.
3)
and
the City’s continued elimination
of
overflow
points
will
act
to further
reduce any impacts on
Powdermill
and
Schoenberger
Creeks.
Richland Creek
is the locus
of most concern.
This
is the
stream
that
is
most
impacted
by Belleville’s CSO.
The proposal,
by
absorbing
the
entire
first
flush
volume,
will eliminate the
single
greatest
problem
caused
by Belleville’s current
operation.
Additionally,
the proposal will increase the City’s
ability to collect,
store
and treat ten million gallons
in excess
of current capacity.
Current dry weather
flow
is 4.71 MGD,
(R.
29);
with current dry weather design average of
8 MGD and maximum
flow of
16 MGD
(R.
38).
ORDER
On October
29,
1987
this Board entered
an Order concerning
this case.
The following Order
is adopted
in response
to tne
Agency’s
Motion
For
Clarification
filed
on
November
10,
1987.
The
following
is
the
final
Order
of
this
Board
and
the
Order
of
October
29,
1987
is hereby vacated.
1.
Petitioner, City
of
Belleville
is
granted
an
exception
from
35
Ill.
Aam.
Code
Section 306.305(a)(b)
only as
relates
to First Flush.
2.
Petitioner
shall
implement
the
structural
and
non—
structural
modifications
contained
in
its
Municipal
Compliance
Plan,
Exhibit
No.
4J.
These
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
the following:
Reduction
of
excess
inflow;
street
cleaning;
periodic
sewer
flushing;
catch
basin
cleaning;
flow
improvements
for
receiving
streams;
bottle—neck
eliminations;
construction
of
surge
relief
interceptors;
construction
of
pumping
station
and
holding
basin
and
various
improvements
within the independent overflow points, all as
identified
in Petitioner’s Municipal Compliance
Plan.
3.
The above construction and modifications shall
be
implemented regardless
of grant
funds
or other economic
air.
4.
The above construction and modification
shall
be done
in accordance with the schedule agreed
to by Petitioner
and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
83—08
—9—
identified
in
the September I~d6Municipal Compliance
Plan
Exhibit
No.
4
.
Three pages
from that compLiance
plan
nave
been
reproduced
and
attached
to
this
order
and
are
hereby
adopted
by
the
Board
and
incorporated
into
this
Order.
5.
The
exception
does
not
preclude
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
from
exercising
its
authority
to
require
as
a
permit
condition
a
CSO
monitoring
program
sufficient
to
assess
compliance
with
this
exception,
any
other
Board
regulations,
including
Section
306.305(c)
or
other
controls
necessary
for
compliance
with
water
quality
standards.
6.
This
exception
is
not
to
be
construed
as
affecting
the
enforceability
of
any
provisions
of
this
exception,
other
Board
regulations
on
the
Environmental
Protection
Act.
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
Board
Member
B.
Forcade
dissented.
I,
Dorothy
M.
Gurin,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
hereby
certify
that
the
above
Opinion
and
Amended
Order
was
adopted
on
the
/?~-
day
of
~
1987
by
a
vote
of
~
—/
Dorothy
t4.
Gunn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
83—09
BELLEVILLE,
ILLINOIS
COMBINED
SEWER
OVERFLOW EXCEPTION
IMPLEMENTAT ION SCHEDULE
TASK
V
E
A
R
S
1987
1988
1989
1990
199~
1.
Pumping
Station
and
First Flush Holding
Basin;
a.
Field Survey
X
X
b.
Plans & Specs
X
X
X
c. Agency Submittal
X
X
d.
Construction
X
X
X
X
2.
East Side Interceptor
a.
Field Survey
X
X
b.
Plans
Zc
Specs
X
X
X
c. Agency Submittal
X
X
d. Construction
X
X
X
X
3.
Misc.
Overflow
a.
Field Survey
X
b.
Plans & Specs
X
c. Agency Submittal
X
d.
Construction
X
X
83—10
TASK
V
E
A
R
S
1989
1990
19.~91
1992
j993
4. Richiand Creek
Interceptor
a. Field Survey
X
X
b.
Plans & Specs
X
X
X
c. Agency Submittal
X
X
d. Construction
X
X
X
X
~.
Replacement Interceptors
a.
Field Survey
X
X
b.
Plans & Specs
X
X
c. Agency Submittal
X
X
d. Construction
X
X
X
X
83—11
TASK
y
E
A
R
S
1.991
1992
1993
1994
19 9~
1~. East Creek
Interceptor
a.
Field Survey
X
X
b.
Plans & Specs
X
X
X
c. Agency Submittal
X
X
d. Construction
X
X
X
X
83—12
