ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August 15, 1985
CITY OF HOOPESTON,
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
PCB 85-36
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGEU~Y.
)
R~)~n.Lent.
OPINION ANL)
O~DER
OF THE BOARD. (by R. C.. Flemal):
This m~Lrer comes before the Board upon a petition for
variance frori
~5 Ill. Adrn.
Code 306.~304 filed by the City of
Hoopeston (“Hoopeston”) on
March
2.5,
1985. Pursuant to the
Board’s request for additional information,
Hoopeston filed an
amended petit:~on (“Pet±t±on~) on May 20, 1985. Hoopeston seeks
variance until July 1, 1988 from Section 306.304, which prohibits
overflows from sanitary sewers, The Illinois Environmental
Protection Ager~cy (“Agency~) filed its recommendations in this
matter on July 2
and
July 19, 1985, recommending that variance be
granted with cond:Ltions, Hoopeston waived its
right to hearing
by its amended petition filed Nay 20, 1985..
Hoopeston is a city of 6,411 people located in Vermilion
County, in east central Illinois. It owns and operates a
collection system and treatment plant. that treats wastes from
commercial and residential
users.
The City seeks variance from
306.304 so that it may allow sewer bypassing to occur at four
locations in
the
northeast part of town (manholes 113, 149, 172A
and 189) during wet weather periods. Hoopeston alleges that
during such periods it experiences sewer surcharging, which
causes sewage to overflow from manholes and damage to private
property resulting from basement floodings..
According to
Petitioner, inadequate capacity exists in the sewer system in
that section of
the City to transport peak flows following
“frequent storm events” (Petition,
p. 6).
Hoopeston states that
these sewers sei~vean older area of the
City which is practically
devoid of storm sewers, and as a consequence is prone to flooding
by surface
waters following heavy
rains.
Petitioner admits “Circumstantial evidence suggests that
some root and yard drains as well as sump pumps may be
introducing storm water to the sanitary sewers in violation of
the City’s
sewer
use ordinance~ (petition., p.
20)1
but contends
that elimination of such inflow sources will not eradicate the
need
for additional permanent facilities
nor obviate the need for
the requested reLief.. Hoopeston .~xpresses its
intent to
independentLy address the inflow
problem,
and
notes that this
action “will ~
to mininIz~
the frequency and severity of
85 245
surcharges and resulting bypasses” (Petition, p. 20).
Hoopeston recently completed an evaluation of three
alternative permanent solutions to its sewer surcharging
problem. Although no plan has of yet been approved by the
Agency, Petitioner’s analysis determined that the most cost
effective solution would be the construction of an excess flow
pump station and a lagoon to store excess flows following a
storm. Under this plan the stored flows would later be returned
to the sanitary sewers for eventual transport to Hoopeston’s
treatment plant. Petitioner’s schedule for implementing these
changes calls for construction to be completed by July, 1988, the
end of the period for which Hoopeston seeks variance. The Agency
by its amended recommendation of July 19, 1985, offered for
Hoopeston’s consideration the option of building an interceptor
sewer to the treatment plant rather than a lagoon. The Agency
believes that either option would be adequate.
During the period of construction of remedial facilities
Hoopeston proposes to alleviate its sewer surcharging problem by
constructing and operating high level overflow structures at
each
of four manholes located at intersections of the sanitary and
storm sewers in
the
northeast section of town. The structures
would be removed within three years, at conclusion of the
construction program. The overflows would allow bypassing
from
the sanitary sewer into the storm sewer during “heavy” rainfall;
Petitioner believes that more than one inch of rainfall will be
necessary to cause surcharging serious enough to warrant
bypassing. An existing storm sewer would transport the
wastewater through the City to an outfall located at the
southwest edge of Hoopeston. From there an open waterway flows
3,000 ft. southwest to the Main Drainage Ditch, which flows
southeast two miles to the North Fork of the Vermillion River.
Hoopeston alleges that only minimal incremental adverse
effects to the receiving stream will result from this variance,
and the Agency agrees with this contention. Hoopeston asserts
that by operating
the
bypasses only during heavy rainfall and
keeping bypass frequency at a minimum, the harmful effect of
sewer overflows on the quality of the receiving water will be
minimized. The Agency agrees that during the pendency of the
variance the status quo of little apparent environmental impact
on the receiving stream would be maintained, and further agrees
with Hoopeston’s contention that the inaccessibility of the open
waterway should prevent any direct contact problems.
The purported principal advantage to Hoopeston’s interim
plan is the minimization of basement flooding. Hoopeston claims
that denial of its petition for variance would cause it to endure
an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship, as the estimated annual
cost resulting from basement flooding in Hoopeston is $410,000
(Petition, p. 21). Petitioner further notes that uncontrolled
overflows
from
sanitary manholes would otherwise occur until
general system upgrading is completed, which will not occur for
65-246
-3-
several years, and thus that granting of the variance would also
minimize public exposure to raw untreated sewage.
The Board finds that denial of variance in this instance
would constitute an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship to
Petitioner, and therefore grants variance to Hoopeston, subject
to conditions. Hoopeston residents are frequently subjected to
the hazards of basement flooding and in fact the City is at
present being sued in two separate actions as a result of these
occurrences. Since any adverse environmental impact occurring as
a result of the proposed variance will be minimal, granting
variance relief as requested by Hoopeston is a reasonable
temporary manner of alleviating its sewer surcharging
and
basement flooding problems.
The Board also finds that addressal of Hoopeston’s inflow
problem constitutes an activity necessary to minimize
environmental impact during the pendency of the variance, and
accordingly conditions the variance with a program to reduce
inflow.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
The City of Hoopeston is hereby granted variance beginning
this day from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.304, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Variance shall begin on the date of this Order and shall
terminate on July 1, 1988, or upon completion of either
an interceptor sewer or a surplus flow lagoon to serve
the northeast portion of the City, whichever occurs
first.
2. Variance shall allow the construction of high level
overflows in manholes 113, 149, 172A and 189 only. No
other sanitary sewer overflows are allowed except the
treatment plant bypass discharge specified in NPDES
permit number 1L0024830.
3. Upon completion of the interceptor sewer or the surplus
flow lagoon, the high level overflows shall be blocked
or otherwise removed from service so that no discharge
from them may occur.
85-247
—4—
4. Petitioner shall meet the following schedule concerning
construction of either the surplus flow lagoon option or
the interceptor sewer option:
A. Complete Final Design,
Acquire Land and Easements
09/30/86
B. Commence Construction
03/30/87
C. Complete Construction
06/30/88
5. Petitioner shall obtain any necessary permits from the
Agency prior to commencement of construction.
6.
Petitioner shall conduct an inspection of its sanitary
sewer system to identify sources of flow due to
downspouts, yard drains, footing drains, and other
extraneous inflows. Such inspection shall be completed
by November 30, 1985. The inflow problem shall be
elimimated by November 30, 1986, to the extent feasible.
7. Petitioner shall submit to the Agency quarterly reports
with its March, June, September and December Discharge
Monitoring Reports stating the progress it has made with
regard to construction and removal of flows from
extraneous sources.
8. Petitioner shall execute and submit a Certificate of
Acceptance in the following form:
CERT IF ICATION
We, the City of Hoopeston, hereby accept and agree to be
bound by all terms and conditions of the Opinion and Order of the
Pollution Control Board in PCB 85-36.
City of Hoopeston
By: Authorized Agent
Title
Date
The Certification shall be sent to the following address:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
Compliance Assurance Section
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Attention: James Frost
65-248
—5—
T IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
/6~-
day of ~
~
1985, by a vote of
1—0
,
•1
~.
___
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
85-249