ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June
29,
1984
IN
THE MATTER OF~
JOINT PETITION OF THE BLOOMINGTON
)
AND NORMAL SANITARY DISTRICT AND
THE
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PCB 84—40
PROTECTION
AGENCY
FOR
EXCEPTION
)
TO
THE
COMBINED
SEWER
OVERFLOW
REGULATIONS.
MICHAEL J. WILSON (CHESLEY AND WILSON) APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE
BLOOMINGTON AND NORMAL SANITARY DISTRICT, and
DAVID
L. RIESER APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.
Anderson):
This matter comes before the Board on the March 29~1984
joint petition of the Bloomington and Normal Sanitary District
(District)
and
the
IEPA (Agency)
for an exception, with
ccn~
ditions,
to
35
111,
Adm.
Code
306.305(a)
and
(b)
of
the
Boarci~s
combined
sewer
overflow
(CSO)
regulations
which
require
that~
“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
the
average
dry
weather
flow
f~or
the
design
year,
shall
receive
a
minimum
of
primary
treatment
and
disinfection
with
adequate
retent~.on
time
~.
The
joint
petition
alleges
that
a)
the
District’s
existii~g
CSO~s have
minimal
water
quality
and
stream
use
impaet~
and
h)
that
construction
and
operation
of
proposed
alternate
facilities
will
save
$34.7
to
$39.3
million
versus
the
costs
to
fully
comply
with
the
Board~s
CSO
regulations.
~aring
was
held on May 11, 1984,
at which some members of
the
p:cess and public were present but did not testify.
Testimc~’
and
exhibits (Exh~1~10) were presented by the petitioners at
hearing.
At the request of the hearing officer at hearing~ ‘~he
Agency
submitted~
on
May 17,
1984,
a letter containing alternate
language for conditions
6 and 7(h)
contained in the Agency’s
58-483
.-.,—
Janua!:y
20,
l~84
l~i:t~:r
(Gr.
Exh.
10, Attach.
E).
This May 17,
1984
letter
is
accepted
as
Exhibit
11.*
No
other
written
sub—
rnittals
or cormue~its
have
been
received.
THE
U~.E~JRICT
AND
ITS
CSO
DISCHARGES
The
1)istrict
Lrt~s;ented seven
witnesses
at
hearing:
1.
Mr.
James
M,
Pappas,
District Executive
Director
and
Chief
Engineer;
2.
Mr.
Douglas
t~.
Mcltori,
Engineer with Farnsworth & Wylie
consu:L
tirig ~ri~j
neurs
3.
Mr~ John
£4.
Callahan,
District Field Superintendent;
4.
Dr.
Harry
Fiuizinqa1
Aquatic Biologist on the Illinois State
university
faculty;
5.
Mr.
George
Swier,
Director
of Engineering
& Water, City
of
Bloomington;
6.
Mr.
Sam
Wylie,
City Engineer, Town of Normal; and
7.
Mr.
James
Pemberton,
Trustee
and
Clerk
of
the
District,
Additionally
the
Agency
presented
testimony
of
Mr.
Toby
Frevert,
an
engineer
and
technical
standards advisor with the Division of
Water Pollution Control, whose duties include analyzing and
coordinating the CSO exception applications.
As much of the
testimony
and accompanying exhibits
(Exh.
1—9) referenced
the
petition and attachments
(Gr.
Exh.
10, Attach.
A
through
Fl),
hearing testimony will
not be directly set forth, but will
instead be
referenced
as appropriate.
The
Bloomington
and Normal Sanitary District, in McLean
County,
encompasses
the
City of Bloomington (Bloomington)
and
the
Town
of Normal
(Normal), which have combined 1980 populations of
79,927,
Major local industries/institutions include State
Farm
and
Country
Companies
Insurance,
Illinois State and Illinois
Wesleyen
Universities, General Electric, Eureka Williams, Ralston
Purina
and
Firestone
Companies.
Board
wish~’
to note,in this second of these CSO
exception
procedures
cases,
that the well—organized presentations
and
responses
to
questions
by
the
resource
persons
at
hearing
greatly
assist
the
Board.
As
the
Board
earlier
suggested
in
PCB 93~231
(Pontiac/Agency
CSO petition),
future petitioners
are
advised to also
examine
the record in this
PCB 84—40 petition.
58-484
—3—
The
District,
whose
area
encompasses
about
25 square miles,
owns
and
operates the 16 MGD treatment plant and interceptor
sewers
which
receive
flows from partially local combined sewer
systems owned by Bloomington and Normal,
The major portion of
the District lies in the 34.5 square mile drainage area of Sugar
Creek and its tributaries.
Sugar Creek is tributary to Salt
Creek and the Sangamon River.
Only the southeast portion of
Bloomington lies in the Kickapoo drainage basin
(Exh.
1).
The treatment plant’s design average flow capacity needs are
estimated to be 20.3 MGD by the year 2005.
The total capacity
for peak flow after the proposed dry weather treatment expansion
is completed will be 82
MGD,
of which 42 MGD is excess flow
receiving primary treatment and disinfection.
An additional 158
MGD would have to be captured and similarly treated if the
District were required to comply with the Board’s CSO regulations
(Exh.
2).
Depending on land availability for siting, the
compliance costs would range from $34.7 to $39.3 million
(R.
17,
Exh.
3,
4).
Additionally, operation and maintenance costs for
the additional interceptors and treatment facilities are
estimated to range,
annually, from $319,000 to $363,000.
There are eighteen existing CSO discharge points, eleven
discharging directly into Sugar Creek and the remaining seven
discharging into its tributaries.
Ten outlets are on the
District’s interceptors, three on Normal’s sewers, and five on
Bloomington’s.
(R.
20, Pet.
Exh.
B,
Exh.
1.)
In
July,
1980,
the
District
began
a
5 days/week overflow
monitoring
program
at
ten
CSO
locations
on
Sugar
Creek,
accompanied
by
a
maintenance
program
to
remove
debris,
repair
weir
leakage,
etc.
to
minimize
non-rainfall
caused
overflow
occurrences.
By
the
end of
1982, there were 6,500 overflow
inspection reports.
(R.
24,
Exh.
B,
ch,
6.)
Additionally, in 1980 the District spent $173,000 to clean
7,000
feet
of
51”,
36”,
and 27” interceptors, with 6,500 feet
televised.
Another
$15,000
was
spent
to
clean
junction
boxes.
Two
months
after
the
completion
of
sewer
cleaning,
the
51”
interceptor
began
to
quickly
accumulate
grit
at
a
point
immediately downstream of the junction box, thus reducing sewer
capacity
and
aggravating the CSO problem,
Starting February,
1981,
a monthly grit monitoring program, covering over 10,000
feet at 31 sites on the main 51”,
36”, and 27” interceptor was
commenced.
Starting in January,
1982, approximately 60 flow
measurements
(as of April
30,
1984) at each of 23 locations
on
five interceptors were undertaken
(R.
25,
31, also see Pet. ch.
7,
Exh~.B).
The
District has a water quality monitoring program
utilizing 13 stations located as follows:
Seven upstream in the
vicinity of the CSO’s, two immediately upstream and 600 yards
58-485
4—
downstceam of the treatment plant, and four farther downstream at
1,
2,
3,
and
4 mile intervals from the plant.
Over 11,000
analytical tests/year are performed.
(See Pet.
ch.
12,
Exh.
B
and oh.
15,
Exh.
C.)
Finally,
a biological survey was conducted in July and
August,
1983 to evaluate the CSO impacts on macroinvertebrate and
fish,
and stream conditions at 19 stations as follows:
seven on
the main branch of Sugar Creek above the treatment plant, two of
which were above any overflows;
two on intermittent steams
receiving
overflows
from the West Slough and Graham Street
sewers;
two
on the West Branch,
one above and one below over-
flows;
two on Skunk Creek with no overflows;
one on Goose Creek,
and five at stations on the Main Branch below the treatment plant
at distances of 600 yards and 1,
3,
4 and
7 miles.
RESULTS
OF THE BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
(See Gr.
Exh.
10,
Exh. C.,
Tables
1—9)
Initial Agency concerns regarding
“some statistical detail
aspects of one of the data analysis techniques” used in the
study have been satisfied.
No question has existed concerning
the quality or validity of the raw data (see Gr.
Exh.
10,
Exh.
E.,
p.
2
and
R. 89—91).
The
macroinvertebrate studies indicated that the majority of
the 19 sites were classified as semi-polluted or unbalanced,
using the Agency stream quality classification, with no sub-
stantial differences attributable to CSO impact.
Although the
sampling was done during the hot weather and drought conditions
of July and August 1984,
the stream appeared to be unbalanced,
but not polluted,
and the DO remained around 6.0 mg/i.
throughout the stress period
(Exh.
C,
p.
16—33,
Table 10).
The fish collections indicate that Sugar Creek can support a
diverse number of fish species.
Although the residual
chlorine
from the tertiary treatment effluent was associated with a con-
siderable reduction of diversity of macroinvertebrates and fish
populations just below the discharge,
recovery
occurred
one
mile
below the plant.
Although Sugar Creek suffers the impacts of pollution and
disruption as an agricultural and urban drainage stream,
there
were ‘~no
directly
observable
effects
of
combined
sewer
overflows
on
the
biological conditions of Sugar Creek”
(R.
38).
LOCAL SEWER PROBLEMS
Bloomington has experienced sewer backups and basement and
surface
flooding.
During the past four years it has spent over
$1
million
on flood reduction projects, has separated over 5,000
feet of combined sewers,
and has corrected backyard flooding in
58-486
—5—
seva~:~oej~hhorhoods,
In 1983,
Bloomington
constructed two
deter~tonb~sins
to intercept storm water
and
reduce
combined
se~je~
ourcharging.
To reduce basement flooding in the separate
sewer
areas, illegal downspout and drain tile connections are
being disconnected.
Bloomington also plans to spend $800,000 in
additional
flood
control
measures.
Normal also has
attempted
to
address
surcharging and base-
ment flooding resulting from a development boom starting in the
195O~s. Presently about 85
of the known private cross—
connections,
a major source of the backup problem, have been
corrected.
Some recent major surcharging incidents were caused
by
manholes
left open during construction of a
major trunk line
as well
as drainage into sewers left open during home con-
struction were excavated basements filled
(R. 51—54).
Doth communities have sewer cleaning programs designed
primarily to p~reventsewer backups
(R.
72, 74).
STREAM AND LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS
Sugar
Creek is classified as a general use stream.
It is
not used for water supply and the only known secondary contact is
for trapping.
Because of lack of dry weather stream flow there
are no recreational opportunities in the overflow areas.
host.
of the channels
in the urban area have been
straightened, deepened, and often paved to increase capacity for
storm usier drainage, considered its primary use.
Land use
is
mainly
residential,
commercial or underveloped.
The Creek flows
range
from
zero to as high as 4,000 to 6,000 cfs.
A rain of one
to
two
inches
results
in
a flow of at least 1,000 cfs,
(See
Pet.,
oh.
9,
Exh.
B.)
There
were no sludge deposits
found in the Main Branch or
major
tributary creeks,
Sludge deposits were noted
in two
open
ditches between the Graham Street and West Slough Sewer outlets
and
the Main
Branch,
The only flow in these ditches is from the
overflow from the sewer outlets,
(R.
55—58.)
The Proposed
Alternate CSO Program includes construction of paved channels
to elirijiahe low spots
in the ditches,
CONCLUSIONS FROM MONITORING PROGRAMS
The monitoring program showed that four of the ten overflows
accounted
for 65
of the total observed.
Regarding
DO,
of the total
901 samples, there were 63 with
DO
less than
$
mg/l;
in only 12 of these did an overflow occur
less than five
days prior to sampling.
Since there
was no
evidence of sludge deposits,
it is concluded thet the
DO readings
are not correlated to CSO events.
It does not
appear that
BOD is
58-487
—6--
signifi~antlyaffected by CSO either,
CR.
61, 62.)
The District
and the Agency asserted that no first flush study was done to
determine overall quality and quantity of the CSO’s because
a)
it
would be time consuming and very expensive and b) the minimal
impact on water quality from the existing
overflows was evident.
JUSTIFICATION FOR EXCEPTION
The Agency,
the District and the consulting
engineers
feel
that exception to Rule 306.305(a)
and
(b)
is warranted because a)
there is minimal CSO impact on the stream,
and
CSO’s
do not
restrict water use,
h) the added cost of full compliance is
prohibitively expensive and should not significantly improve
water quality,
c)
the proposed alternate control program will
provide benefits at a reasonable cost.
(R.
63—64.)
THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATE CONTROL PROGRAM
The District feels the various components of the recommended
CsO control program correct or alleviate specific problems found
in the studies.
The controls are:
(See Exh.
5.)
1.
Construction of a grit chamber for the interceptor from the
West Slough Sewer to discharge to the 51” Caroline Street
interceptor,
By alleviating the problem of grit deposition
in the
5i’~interceptor,
its capacity would increase by about
50,
resulting in an additional
10 mgd flow to the treatment
plant
arid a proportionate decrease in CSO from the outlets
along the interceptor.
The estimated cost is $289,000.
2.
Construction of paved bottoms
in the two ditches,
as
described
p~, p.
5.
The estimated cost is $187,600.
3.
Revisions to piping of the Sanitary Relief Sewer area to
better utilize available capacities of two sewers
(48’~and
Normal Valley) below this point.
This would increase
intercepted flow by 16 MDG (from 20 to 36 MGD) and reduce
CsO
frequency.
The estimated cost is $96,700.
4,
Various revisions to piping and adjustment of weirs to
reduce CSO,
Estimated cost is $23,900.
5.
Construction of additional interceptor from the Normal
Valley sewer area to the treatment plant to receive the
additional flows from the piping revisions in
3)
and 4)
above,
Available capacity will increase from 16 to 30 MGD.
The estimated cost is $1,298,000,
The overall increase in District transport capacity by
restoring the 5l~capacity and construction the new interceptor
is about 24 MGD, reducing overflows by as much as 1,200 MGD per
year.
Additionally, about
329,000
pounds
of
pollutant
BOD
materials will be Lemoved,
58-488
—7—
The total cost of the alternate CSO program is estimated at
$1,896,000.
Compliance with the Board’s regulations for CSO
controls would,
as stated earlier, cost $34,.7 to $39.3 million.
The total costs of all construction projects are:
(R.
64—67)
Mimonia Control, Expansion and Upgrading
$14,677,000
Sludge Processing and Disposal
5,028,000
$19,705,000
CSO Control Program
1,896,000
Total
$21,601,000
The taxpayer impact would vary considerably between
financing the costs
for a CSO program with and without an ex-
ception.
The District has a general obligation bonding power
(financed through property taxes) of $28 million.
The total tax
rate for aLl government bodies presently averages $5,25/$100
assessed valuation,
If
the full $39.3 million for CSO controls is required, and
a 55
foderal grant
(75
funding is unavailable) is obtained,
financing the local
share of $17.7 million would increase pro-
perty taxes by $0,45/$100 assessed valuation over a 15 year
period.
If the alternate $1.9 million program is allowed,
property taxes would increase $,044/$100 assessed valuation over
a
6 year period,
The full CSO program would increase total taxes
by 8,6;
while the alternate CSO program would increase taxes
less than 1.
In addition, the local
share of the costs of the sludge
processing and disposal and ammonia controls will require an
average tax levy over 15 years of $0.27/$100 assessed valuation,
Regarding annual operating costs, the full required CSO
program is estimated to cost $363,000 versus the proposed
alternate at $101,000.
The increase in sewer rates would be
$0.13 and $0~04/1000gallons respectively.
(R.
78—81.)
The District hopes to have its project design completed and
approved as quickly as possible
in order to be able to get
federal funding in October, 1985.
All funds for this and the
upcoming
federal fiscal year are already obligated
(R.
83—84),
THE RESOLUTION
Easud on the results of the comprehensive stream inspection
and watec quality data, and the biological
survey, the Board
concludes that the District’s CSOts have a minimal impact on
water quality and
stream
use,
In addition to the District’s
proposed construction program,
its post—construction program
58-489
—8--
of mca.
~
th~.
three years the overflows, grit deposition,
wateL
~
Li*iogical effects, and sewer flows can continue
to
aC~UO~ tt
~c CSt impact will
be controlled,
Giveo
~iee~
ciLcumstances, and the economic considerations
—
a
savia~’s
£ ~omc
~35
million
—
the District has persuasively
shown that
i~ ;
~-ilternate
program approach is preferable to full
compi
ii~~
~
LII
the
Board’s CSO regulations.
The Board accordingly finds that the Petitioners have pro-
vided
tho ~ustJfacation for
1) the granting of an exception to
35 Iii.
Ada. Code 306,305(a)
and
(b), and 2)
the District’s
prococdin~
;:ith
th~.
alternate program as proposed, outlined as
conditions
in the
attached
Order.
While the Board is aware that
these cond~tivuihave been agreed to, the Board will require
executio~i~f
c~rtificate of acceptance,
as the amendatory
lettei.
of
~a
~a~ks
the
District’s
signature.
ounstitutes
the
Board’s
findings
of
fact
and
conclu~Li~s
~ l~ in
this matter,
ORDER
1.
Th~ 13
~i~toii
and Normal Sanitary District (District)
is
an exception from 35
Iii, Adm, Code 306.305(a)
aed (t~
aiL~~ctto the following conditions:
a)
~
Di~trictshall execute outlet channel improvements
below
W?st
Slough and Graham Street combined sewer
overflows as proposed on pages 17—1 and 17—2 of the
BDSD Combined Sewer Overflow Study Phase III
& IV
report
dated
September,
1983
(Gr, Exh,
10,
Exh. C).
b)
The
District shall install operate and maintain the
~rjt
r~val facility at the juncture of West Slough
nod
the
51 inch interceptor as proposed in pages
1/~ttbiough
17-5 of BNSD Combined Sewer Overflow Study
Ill
&
IV
report dated September, 1983.
~iet
shall complete the piping modification to
~t~om
in the vicinity of Overflow 013 as
in pages 17—4, and 17—6 through 17—8 of BNSD
a~wer Overflow Study Phase III
& IV report
~
1983,
•
~ict
shall complete the piping modifications to
a’
Ly~temin the vicinity of overflows 011,
i
~C9
and construction of a new interceptor from
~ to the District’s treatment plant grounds as
~
~ages 17—8 throught 17—11 of BNSD Combined
‘v~itoaw
Study Phase III
& IV report dated
58-490
‘&:~uOOt
to
the completion of
the
grit
removal
fac’tilt’ a~dits being placed into operation,
the
District
shall
monitor
the
downstream
interceptor
once
per mortt~
at representative manholes
for
a
12
month
period t~demonstrate effectiveness of grit
removal
faoi1iiy
in
maintaining
full, transport capacity of the
dowastr~rn interceptor.
Upon completion of the
monitria~j
period a report describing the results of
the
nonitodng
shall
be submitted to the Agency.
f)
The r~istrictshall maintain its current monitoring
activities including a)
inspection
of
overflows
on
a
5
day ~er ~reekfrequency,
h) water
chemistry
monitoring
at
nil 3ugar Creek sampling stations except
for
8 and
9
on a once per week frequency from April through October
and
a eeoc every
two
week
frequency from November
thruogh
March
with
Stations
8
and
9 monitored
daily
throughout
the year, and c)
a biological survey of
Suga~Cieiek
on
an
annual
basis.
Biological
surveys
sn~~l
‘~
performed
during
the
late
spring—early
summer
seaso’~,
These
monitoring activities shall be main—
tairicu
~or
a period of
3 years following completion of
conditions
a) through
d) above.
2.
D~th.~
u
ro~t’-~atvadays
of
the date
of
this
Order,
the
Dis:~oota~a~l
execute a Certification
of
Acceptance
and
Ap
aon~
~
be
bound
to
all
terms
and
conditions
of
this
erco t~•c
Said
Certification
shall
be
submitted
to
the
an
22(~0
Churchill
Road,
Springfield,
IL
62706.
The
fiva
oay period
shall
be
held
in
abeyance during
any
per1~1 ch
this
matter
is
being
appealed.
The
form
of
said
Certht~ca~iort
shall
be
as
follows:
CERTIFICATION
I, (1~
____
_~___~~,
hereby
accept
and
ag’~a ~o be
bound
by
all
terms
and
conditions
of
the
Order
of the
~\1l~tlon
Control
Board
in
PCB
84—40,
June
29,
1984.
Authori ~od
Title
Date
IT
IS
~C.
551
58-491
—10—
I, Dorothy
M.
Gunn,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
hereby
certify that the above Opinion and Order
was
adopted
on the
•~2’~~:
day ~
~
,
1984 by a vote of
~
(c
~—
/
~
Dorothy M. ~unn, Clerk
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
~Q~AO9
