ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February
5, 1987
CITY OF OGLESBY,
)
Petitioner,
VS~
)
PCB 86—3
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.~
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.~ Anderson):
This matter comes before
the Board on
a January
2,
1986
petition filed by the City of Oglesby (City)
for exception
to
IlL
Adni.. Code
306..305(a)
and
(b)
of the Board’s combined sewer
overflow
(CSO)
regulations..
This action has been conducted
pursuant
to the CSO exception procedure
(Sections 306.350—306..374
generally)
The City filed
a single petition,
as
the Environmental
Protection Agency (Agency)
declined (both before and after
hearing)
to become
a joint petitioner..
Hearing was held on June
20,
1986..
One member of the public was present and did not
testify.
In response
to requests at hearing
as well
as an August
13,
1986 Hearing Officer’s Order,
the City filed additional
information
on August
4,
1986, August
11,
1986,
and
August 21,
1986;
the Agency filed comments on August 27,
1986, which
included
an August
15,
1986 report from the City which responds
to an August
1,
1986 request concerning the City’s Municipal
Compliance Plan
(MCP)..
The Agency also
filed
a request for Board
Action on January
5,
1987..
General Description:
At the outset,
the Board
notes that certain elements of the
petition and supporting information were developed, amended,
or
updated during
the course
of this proceeding,
including post—
hearing transmittals..
The Board will not summarize these
amendments, except
as they may relate
to the Board’s
determination..
The Board
also notes that this record reflects
the City’s
interaction with the Agency
in developing
its
Municipal Compliance Plant
(MCP),
a federally required process
to
assure
that
all
of the
City’s facilities are in full compliance
with the Clean Water Act by the July
1,
1988 deadline..
75-196
—2—
The City, with
a 1980 population of 3,979,
is bisected by
Ill..
Rte..
71 and
is located about one mile south of the Illinois
River..
The Vermilion River flows from southeast
to northwest
along
the northeast boundary of the developed portion of the City
(Ex..
H)..
The City’s CSO’s flow to the Vermilion River..
35
Ill..
Adm..
Code 306.305(a)
and
(b)
read as follows:
Section 306.305
Treatment of Overflows and Bypasses
All combined sewer overflows and treatment plant bypass shall be
given sufficient treatment
to prevent pollution, or
the violation
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
average
dry
weather
flow
for
the
design
year,
shall
receive
a
minimum
of
primary
treatment
and
disinfection with adequate retention
time..
The City asserted that it
is unable either
to fully treat
the total first
flush volume or
to provide primary treatment and
chlorination
to ten times dry weather
flow..
The City has
approximately ~5 miles of combined sewers
and five miles of
separate sewers
(Ex.
I,
R..
23)..
The City also stated that its sewage treatment plant
(STP)
is unable
to consistently meet effluent limitations
in its NPDES
permit
for BOD and total
suspended solids
(R..
22,
23).
Over
the years, particularly in the mid 1950’s and 1960’s,
storm sewers were constructed
to alleviate the most serious
localized basement backup and flooding conditions.
Recently,
a
storm sewer was constructed to
serve an industrial
area.
However,
the major portion of the City
is still served by a
combined
sewer system with high rates of inflow
(Ex..
B,
p..
11,
12)..
In some areas,
even though
storm sewers exist,
there is
still
infiltration/inflow because of poor joints, as well
as
unlocated foundation drains and downspouts~.. (R.
25)
The
City has
adopted
a downspout ordinance to eliminate flow to the combined
sewers..
During rainfall periods,
the City blocks some of the
inlets..
The City also conducts twice weekly Street sweeping and
semiannual sewer
cleaning,
on an
as needed basis..
(R.
18—20,
72)
75-197
—3—
The major
interceptor traverses across an area tributary to
a series of
ravines..
All flows, both surface and sewer, traverse
these ravines and discharge into the Vermilion River, which has
a
7
day/b
year low flow of about
8 CFS.
(Ex..
B,
3,
R.
25)
There
are
four
overflow
points
in
the
combined
sewer
system:
0—1,
0—2,
0—3
and
0—4.
CSO—0—4
is
an
STP
bypass
located
at
the
STP
outfall.
(Ex.
I)
The
overflows
travel
about
300—400’
through
the
ravine
beds,
dropping
about
50—60’
before
reaching
the
River..
Based
on measurements
at CSO—0—4 only,
the City estimated that
overflows occur about
10—12
times
a year at
all four CSO’s and
are triggered by about
a
1/4 inch/hour of
rainfall..
(R.
45—47).
The STP is a trickling filter
secondary treatment facility
built in
1956.
Its average and peak flows are 0.492 and 0.993
respectively..
Sustained wet weather flow over a 31 day period
in
March,
1982, was 0.691
mgd..
Industry contribution
is
insignificant.
(R.
28,29,
Ex. H).
The STP
is relatively
landlocked,
since
it sits in
a bowl, with much
higher
land
surrounding
the site
(Pet..,
p..
6,
Ex..
A, p.
1)
The overflow points are contained
in manholes; overflows
occur when the trunk
sewer
is about one—half full.
(R..
34)
Regarding CSO—0—4,
a bypass occurs when the flow reaches about
0.9 mgd
at the head end of the plant..
Proposed Improvements
Under
the proposed upgrading,
it appears that under wet
weather conditions
the STP might be able
to accept L452
ingd as
limited
by the primary settling tanks,
although later submittals
indicate that full secondary treatment appears
to be limited by
the 1.224 mgd short—term capacity of the final
settling
tank..
(R..
61—71, City letter, 8/4/86,
Attach..
II, City letter 8/15/86
attached
to Agency Comment E—6)
The City made the following determination of the percentage
volume of first flush
to be captured and treated
(City letter
8/4/86, Attach.
III)
75-198
—4—
FIRST FLUSH CAPTURED AND TREATED
SYSTEM:
CAPACITY
EXISTING
REMAINING
LIMITING
UNTIL
1/2
DIRECTED
CUMULATIVE
HYDR..
CAP.
FULL
(i.e.
TO
PLANT
1
YR.,
1
HR..
TO NEXT
OVERFLOW
FR
1ST FLUSH
CAPTURED
TOTAL
DOWNSTREAM
BEGINS) -TO
STORN OF
FLOW
AND
AVERAGE
OVERFLOW
CARRY 1ST
1 HOUR
VOLUME
TREATED
WF
(CFS)
(CFS)
FLUSH
(CFS)
(MG)
(MG)
_____
0.149
0.83
0.83—0.149=0.34
0.009
0.27
3.4
2
0.337
2.5
2.5—0.337=1.08
0.029
0.76
3.8
2
0.365
4.1
4.1—0.365=1.87
0.050
0.84
6.0
2
1,513
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
~WATERTREATMENT PLANT:
CAPACITY
TREATED
CUMULATIVE
REMAINING TO
AT
1 YR.,
1
HR..
PROVIDE FULL
PLANT
1ST FLUSH
CAPTURED
TREATMENT OF
FROM
FLOW
AND
~GE
PEAK PLANT
FIRST FLOW
STORE OF
VOLUME
TREATED
CFS) CAPACITY
(MGD)
(MGD)
1 HOUR (MG)
(MG)
19
2.2134
2,2134—0,879
=
0.056
2,84
1.3344
The Board notes that the post—hearing data, correcting or
adding
to what was presented
at hearing,
still leaves questions
as
to
the hydraulics of
the system
overall..
In any event,
the
Agency appears
to be satisfied with the post—hearing data
regarding wet/dry weather capacities at
the treatment plant..
(Agency Comments, 8/27/86,
p.
2).
Regarding overflow improvements, to minimize impact on the
stream
the City proposes
to install:
bar grates
at four manhole
locations for 0—2 and 0—4,
a bar grate
at a single manhole
location for 0—3,
and stop plank grooves and
stop planks
to raise
75-199
—5—
the elevation of the overflow at the manhole for 0—1
(Ex.
H..—
5,6)..
The bar grates will screen—out sewage related matter and
debris which,
after
the flow has receded, would
be manually raked
so
as
to fall down
into the manhole and flow toward the plant.
The stop plank grooves and stop planks will
raise the elevation
of the overflow, thus directing more flow to the plant
(Ex.. H—5,
R..4l)~..
The City also proposes
to rehabilitate certain parts of
the combined system,
including pipe and manhole replacements
(Ex.
11—5,
Table
B—2)..
The Board notes that dry weather overflows also were found
at
outfalls
0—3A
and
0—5,
which
the
City
proposes
to
capture
and
treat.
Also,
although
a
storm
sewer
had
been
built,
there
still
were
extraneous
flows
from
the
combined
system
discharging
through 0—5 from downspouts,
foundation drains and infiltration;
the City,
after
the hearing, proposed
to spend
an additional
$25,000
to further
eliminate downspouts
and
increase the capacity
of a proposed lift station
so as
to assure capture of all flows
from 0—5.
(Ex..
11—4,
R..26,
City post—hearing comment 8/4/86).
Another potential impact on the CSO system would occur
if
new development, which
is anticipated, occurs because of
construction of
a new expressway on the western edge of the
City.
Along with storm
sewers,
the City would construct sanitary
sewers as well as
a lift station and
forcemain,
and direct the
sanitary flows
to the existing combined
interceptor upstream of
the treatment plant.
The City felt, although
it had no
documentation, that flows
from new development would have no
impact on the quality of the upstream overflows, and estimated
that sending the sanitary sewer flow directly to
the STP would
cost an additional $l25,000—$150,000.
(R.
100)..
Environmental Impact
The City asserted that its proposal will remove 92
of the
pollutants which would
be removed by full compliance with the
Board’s regulations.
The City asserted, and the Agency did not
disagree,
that the environmental
impact on the ravines and the
Vermilion
River
are
minimal.
In
1985,
two
field
inspections
were
made
jointly
by
the
Agency
and
the
City,
in
addition
to
one
made
by
the City alone..
Minimal debris and deposits were observed
(R..
37)..
No biological
surveys were performed;
all assessments were
based on visual
observation..
Five overflow points were inspected
four
times..
(Ex..
G, p.2)
Small amounts of sewage related debris
were observed
at 0—i,
0—2 and 0—4
Ex.
D,
p..
1—33,
Ex.
G..
p.
2—
7).
The City asserts that
the bar grates will alleviate
the
situation.
Ponding adjacent
to 0—2 and 0—4 containing sewage
deposits, and sometimes odors, were observed
(Ex.
D,
R.42)..
The
ponding formed by CSO—0—4,
which also discharges the STP effluent
appears to
be unavoidable
(R..
91)..
Sludge banks were not present
75-200
—6—
(Ex. D, G).
There appeared
to be no impact on the Vermilion
River
(Ex.
D,G)..
In general, the ravine beds meander through “rock
outcropping,
sand and gravel bars, and clay deposits”.
(Ex..
H—
4).
None
have
been
channelized
and
there are no significant log
jams
or
vegetative
debris..
Regarding
land
use,
it
is
in
an
undeveloped/natural
state..
(Ex.
11—4,
D,G).
Except
at
0—4,
which
also
discharges
the
STP effluent, the stream beds’
flows are
intermittent,
with
flow
occurring
solely
from
rainfall
run—off
and
overflows.(R..97).
The
City
stated
that
all
the
ravine
land
is privately owned
(in part by Lone Star Industries,
R.
91), and
is quite inaccessible because of the initial steep drops,
a
railroad
embankment
which
acts
as
a
barrier,
another
drop,
and
outcroppings.
The
area
is
heavily
overgrown
with
trees
and
brush
along
the way before
the River
is reached.
It was noted however,
that in picture fl2 of the Petition, boards were nailed to
a tree
near 0—2, possibly for
climbing..
(Pet.
R.
89,
94—96)..
In general,
the City asserts that the overflows have no
significant impacts on the ravine streams, the River,
or
the
river valley
in general.
In support,
it notes that increasing
numbers
of game fish, as well
as rough fish,
abound
in the
River..
It states
that, when the improvements
are made at the
overflows,
“there should
be little possibility of
a pollutional
problem
resulting from the existing overflows”.
(Ex. G,
P.
10)
Economic Impact
The City asserts that the full compliance cost
of $8,934,000
in capital
expenditures plus
annual operations and maintenance
(O&M)
and debt service of $1,323,800 would, over
20 years
at a
10
interest
rate,
increase
the
user
rate
to
$78.80/mo
(based
on
1400
users).
In
contrast,
if the exception
is granted, the
capital
cost
would
total
$1,600,000,
plus
annual
O&M
and
debt
service
costs
of
$216,000,
resulting
in
a
$17.59/mo.
user
rate..
(Ex..
H—i).
The assessed valuation of the City between 1978 and 1985 has
declined
from
$20,661,000
to
$17,093,000,
due
mainly
to
a
downward reassessment of local
industry and
an increase
in
homestead
exemptions..
The
City’s
present
(April
30,
1986)
bonded
debt
is
$757,382.
Two of the bond
issues, totalling $365,000, were
incurred
to pay for
storm sewers
($300,000)
and for other
improvements in the industrial park
at the west end of
town..
These
improvements
in
turn
allowed the City
to receive
a $300,000
grant from the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs.
The
grant money was loaned
to
a company which was
to pay off the
two
bond issues;
however,
the company is
in Chapter
11
bankruptcy..
Overall, City revenues have remained basically the same.
The
75-201
—7—
City’s property tax
levy is at its maximum,
so additional
sewer
fees
may
have
to
be
imposed
to
pay
for
the
project..
As
of
April
30,
1986,
the
City’s
total
deficit
was
about
$150,000.
(R..
112—
117).
Agency Concerns
The
City’s
initial
submittal
to the Agency for exception was
rejected..
This
submittal
was
much
less
substantial
than
that
ultimately chosen by the City
in its single Petition.
By the
time
the
submittal
was
upgraded, too little time remained
for
Agency
review
prior
to
“signing
on”
as
a
co—petitioner.
However,
at
the
end
of
hearing,
and
following
review
of
post—hearing
data,
the Agency still remains unwilling
to be
a co—petitioner
in
support
of
a
permanent
exception..
Nevertheless,
while
not
acting
as
a
co—petitioner,
the
Agency
does
support
a
“provisional”
exception,
with conditions,
to expire one year after the
anticipated completion date of the
improvements..
Prior
to
expiration of the temporary exception,
and before granting
a
permanent exception,
the Agency recommends that hearing be
scheduled, at which the City should justify the efficacy of the
improvements
or proposed further
improvements.
The Agency’s continuing concerns
include:
a)
The effects on the combined sewer system of the planned
force
main
and
pumping
station
to
accommodate
growth
near
the
new
expressway..
The Agency recommends that as
a condition of
the
temporary exception,
no new
significant
expansion
be
allowed
in
the service area tributary
to combined sewers until
the City can
show
that the existing overflow problems will
not be aggravated.
b)
Regarding
ponding
below
the
outfalls,
the
Agency
recommends that the ravines below the outfalls be
inspected
annually,
and that, except for the present ponding
area below CSO
0—4,
any
ponding
areas
be
removed
where feasible and practical..
C)
Add
as conditions to the temporary exception those
measures
to which
the City has agreed,
i.e..,
eliminate overflows
at 0—3A and 0—5;
the City’s
street
sweeping
program;
the
City’s
representations
as
to
reductions
of
infiltration
and
inflow,
inspection
of
diversion
chambers,
and
construction
of
storm
sewers..
The Agency feels that these activities
are important
to
keep
the
environmental
impacts
minimal.
d)
The Agency further recommends that assessment of
performance efficiency be undertaken on
a frequent basis
concerning
“Phase
II”
inspection (presumably referencing the
Agency’s CSO technical guidelines)
below the outfalls with some
assessment
of
overflow
frequency,
duration,
and
quality
at
all
outfalls..
75-202
—8—
The Agency also states that “the Board may properly find
that
the
level
of
justification
required
of
a
single
petition
has
been
satisfied
by
the
City”..
(Agency
Comments,
p..
4).
Finally,
the Agency asserts that grant of an exception on a
temporary basis would not affect grant funding
and indicates that
it would not interfere with the NCP approval process.
(Agency
Comments,
R..
121—127).
Board
Conclusions:
The Board shares the Agency’s concerns and generally agrees
with its proposed temporary exception approach, although with
additions
to
and
more
specificity
than,
the
Agency’s
recommended
conditions.
The
Board
notes
that
it
will
time
the
temporary
exception
to
the implementation schedule attached
to the City’s
8/21/86 post hearing letter, which lists “Phase
I”
completion as
July
1,
1988
as the point of “Full Plant Operation and Meeting
NPDES Limits.”
In
the absence of information
to the contrary.,
the
Board will assume that this deadline also applies
to the CSO
upgradings..
However,
the temporary exception will be timed
so
as
to allow two years from the July
1,
1988 completion date
to
gather post—full operation data.
The Board will also retain
jurisdiction.
Regarding
the constraints on expansion of the service area,
the Order
allows the City,
by way of motion
for modification,
to
request the Board
to allow hook—ons beyond the residential
15
Population Equivalent (PE)
limitation..
(see Paragraph
3 of the
Order)..
The ~oard cautions the City that it must submit
justification data of sufficient specificity
for the Board to
evaluate the hydraulic effects of the new loadings on the system,
including upstream—overflows,
and the effects on the quality of
the overflows.
The Board,
additionally, will require
that the City,
as a
single petitioner, gather
the additional data
in Section
306.361(b)
and
(C),
of
Board
regulations
as
required
by
Section
306.362 unless the City can, pursuant to 306.361(d), provide
a
justification
for
its
inapplicability.
The
Board
notes
that,
even
if
this
is
an
agreed
minimal
impact
situation,
the
absence
of the Agency presently as a co—petitioner triggers
in these
provisions.
The Board also notes that the City has failed
to
provide sufficient information pursuant to Section 306.361(a),
much less
(b)
and
(c), particularly regarding frequency and
extent of overflow events and limited
stream chemical
analyses..
The purpose of these provisions was to avoid just such
a
situation as found
in
this proceeding.
The Board also notes that
the City will be required
to
file an amended petition for
permanent exception, following which the Board will schedule
a
hearing.
75-203
—9—
In summary,
the Board
finds that, taking
into account the
factors contained
in
27(a)
of the Act, the City of Oglesby has
not justified
a permanent exception, but has justified
a
temporary
exception, with conditions.
This Opinion constitutes
the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law
in this matter.
ORDER
1.
Except as provided
in Paragraph
2
of this Order,
the City of
Oglesby is granted
a temporary exception until July
1,
1990
from 35
Ill. Adm. Code 306.305(a)
regarding first
flush of
storm
flows and from 35
Ill..
Adm. Code 306.305(b)..
2.
If,
on or before March
1,
1990,
the City of Oglesby fails
to
submit
an amended petition
for exception, this temporary
exception will terminate on March
1,
1990.
3.
During this temporary exception period the City of Oglesby,
in consultation with the Agency,
shall,
as
a minimum:
a)
Comply with the provisions of 35
Ill..
Adm..
Code
306.361(b)
and
(c)
unless, pursuant
to subsection
(d)
the City includes
a justification
in its amended
petition for
the inapplicability of the required
evaluations,
or the Agency as a joint petitioner agrees
that there
is
a minimal discharge
impact..
b)
Unless authorized by the Board upon
a petition
for
modification of this order, 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
Ill..
Adrn.. Code
301.. 345.
c)
The City shall
inspect annually the ravines below all
outfalls
for ponding
and, except
for
the present ponding
below CSO 0—4,
shall
either
timely eliminate
all ponding
or justify
in the amended petition that elimination
is
technically infeasible or economically unreasonable.
d)
The City of Oglesby shall continue its present street
sweeping program and its proposed program of reducing
infiltration and
inflow, inspection of diversion
chambers, and construction of storm
sewers..
e)
Pursuant
to
Ill..
Adni.
Code 306.361(a)
the City shall
continue
to
inspect below the outfalls at least
twice
yearly
for unnatural bottom deposits,
odors, unnatural
floating material
or color, stream morphology,
and
results of
limited stream chemical analysis;
the City
75-204
—10—
also
shall measure and test overflow events at CSO—0—l,
0—2
and
0—3
sufficient
to
determine
their
frequency,
extent,
and quality.
4.
The Board will retain jurisdiction
in this matter.
IT
IS SO ORDERED..
B.
Forcade dissented.
I, Dorothy
M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the abpve Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
~
day
of
~
,
1987,
by
a
vote
of
J~—/
.
it
~
/
.z~
Dorothy
M.. ,~unn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
75-205
