ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 26, 1983

CITY OF EAST PEORIA,

)

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 83—38

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J. Anderson):

This matter comes before the Board on the March 16,

1983

petition for variance filed by the City of East Peoria (City).

The City seeks variance from 35

Ill. Adm. Code 305.102(b), 306.303

and 306.304 in order to bypass excess

flows without monitoring

during periods of wet weather and mechanical failure of lift

station pumps,

during its pursuit of grant funding for sanitary

sewer rehabilitation work.

19 overflow and bypass points from

its sanitary sewer system were specified in the petition.

16 of

these overflow points were the subject of a prior variance

from

the predecessor Chapter

3 Rules 501(c) and 602(b) granted in

PCB 81-36, May 14, 1983,

11 of which 16 were the subject of a

still earlier variance in PCB 79—244, February 21,

1980.

The

records of these proceedings are hereby incorporated into this

action.

On May 2,

1983 the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

filed a Recommendation that variance from Section

305.102(b) be denied as unnecessary on the grounds that the City’s

NPDES permit contains no monitoring requirements with which the

rule would require the City to comply.

The Agency recommends

grant of variance from Sections 306.303 and 306.304, but only as

to 18 over-flow points and subject to a variety of conditions.

These include compliance with conditions established in the

PCB 81-36 variance, and with those contained in the Board Order

in PCB 78-263——an Agency enforcement action against the City

concerning permit violations and failure to have

a permit relating

to sanitary sewer overflows.

On June 13,

1983 the City filed a

response to the Recommendation challenging certain facts and

conclusions, and commenting on the proposed conditions.

Hearing

was waived and none has been held.

The City owns and operates

3 wastewater treatment plants and

their tributary sanitary sewer systems.

During dry weather, the

City’s main problem

is routine maintenance of the lift stations,

53-97

---

2

where one or both pumps could he out of service.

During wet

weather,

the sewer system is subject

to

severe infiltration and

inflow, causing basement backups.

To relieve the backups and

other related problems, the

City

maintains several

sanitary sewer

system bypasses~

The

19 overflow points,

discharge points,

and the plant to

which they are tributary are as

listed below, with new overflow

points indicated by an asterisk:

Plant

Overflow

r~?oi~

STP

1

STP2

STP3

700

Springfield Rd—Manhole

30

1020 Springfield Rd—Manhole

27

400

Meadows Ave—Manhole 44

1500 Meadows Ave—Manhole

41

Maybee Ave—between Manhole

14 and 15

Cracklewood

Ct~Manhole

*Flossmar Ct—Manhole

Woodlawn Lift Station

Field

Grove

Lift

Station

Lincoln Parkway Lift Station

Alice Street Lift Station

Brentwood Lift Station

Maria Street Lift Station

Pebble Court Lift Station

Crawford Street and

Railroad

Alley-Manhole 64

*Rejnders~,Manhol~34

*~j~

Oaks

Ct-near

Manhole

37

*Crest

arms Ct—Manhole

*East Oakwood Ave-Manhole

Cole Creek

Cole Creek

Dry Run Creek

Dry Run Creek

unnamed ditches

tributary to

Dry Run Creek

unnamed ditches

tributary to

Illinois River

Ackerman Creek

drainage area

behind Fondulac

Dam

All

of the above referenced creeks and the drainage area are

tributary to Farm Creek, which is tributary to the Illinois River.

The Agency

reports

that most of

these

points

were inspected

on April

6,

1983,

As

to

the

5

new

overflow

points, the Agency

reports that

the

Flossmar

and

Reinders

overflows were installed

summer, 1982 without

its

knowledge,

to

relieve basement backups

in a “few” nearby homes,

No comment was made as to installation

time of the Twin Oaks and Crestarms Ct. overflows.

Each of these

4 overflow points are equipped with high—level overflows.

None

was discharging on the date of Agency inspection.

in

However,

a bypass was occurring at the fifth,

the East

Oakwood overflow,

This bypass originates on an 8-inch sewer about

50 feet downstream of a manhole.

it was installed to relieve

53-98

---

3

backups

in two homes against the Agency~sadvice:

the Agency

believes the bypass was unnecessary, believing that backups

resulted from improper sewer maintenance rather than lack of

hydraulic capacity.

The City, however, notes that the plugging

of this sewer is due

to

solids accumulation

in

combination with

low flow conditions,

and that it had installed necessary valves

and piping near the floor of Fondulac

Darn to allow for cleaning

in this remote area with limited

access.

During sewer cleaning,

discharge will

occur

when access valves are opened.

The City

believes that this overflow point is the most desirable of the

admittedly undesirable alternatives during storm events,

since

equipping the affected

homes

with

check

valves

to

prevent

backflow

would

likely cause a discharge from

a

manhole

whose

overflow would flow past a community well.

The City also states

that

it is raising the elevation of

the

overflow

to prevent

bypassing

from

occurring

until

just

prior

to

residential

flooding,

and

that

a

flow

level alarm

is

also

being

installed

to allow

time

for

a

crew

to

respond.

Such

response

would amount

to

pumping

of

the

line,

since

during wet

weather

the

City

installs

portable

pumps at various

manholes to

relieve

surcharging,

By

way

of

example,

between

April

1—4,

5 areas

were

pumped.

This estimated bypass of 10

million gallons would have been in addition to those from the

previously listed permanent bypasses.

Another point noted in the April

6 inspection was that the

7 lift stations tributary to STP

I were equipped with the high—

level overflows,

red light high level alarm systems and 2

submersible pumps required by previous variances,

and those

tested were in operating order,

The Agency additionally noted

that there were problems with the sewer

line that diverts flow

from the Springfield Road sewer to the Cole Creek interceptor.

The City explains that a 60 foot section of ductile iron pipe

running through a fault area was ruptured when the fault shifted

“dramatically~during December,

1982.

A flexible pipe was

installed to accommodate further movement until permanent repairs,

scheduled for this summer, can he made.

The City states that

it intends to eliminate all of these

overflows, provided that it receives grant funds to do so.

The

City currently has a Step

1 grant, with its Sewer System

Evaluation Study scheduled to be completed in July,

1983.

The

City anticipates that design and construction of needed repairs

would presently cost over $6 million (its estimate in 1977 was

$2.5 million),

Assuming it

is awarded a Step 2—3 grant,

the City

believes sewer rehabilitation could be completed within 13 months

of its receipt of a grant.

The City asserts that elimination of its sewer system

overflows prior to receipt of grant funding would impose an

arbitrary or unreasonable hardship,

as

it “does not have the

financial capacity to fund a project of this magnitude” by itself.

53-99

---

As

to

past

expenditures,

it

notes

that

it

expended

$25,000

in 1981

to

install

the

required visual

and

audible

alarms

at

lift

stations,

$15,000

in

1978

to

build

sewers

to

divert

flows

from

Springfie~.d

Road

to

Cole

Street,

(No

figures

or

further

information

were

given

as

to

the sewer cleaning program, or pump system

and

trailer

mounted

generator

mentioned in the petition.)

The

City

contends

that

its

system

of

bypassing

is

more

environmentally

desirable

than

the

basement

backup

problems

which

would

result without

the

system,

Several

of

the

overflows

discharge

at the bottom of steep ravines, while others

discharge

to storm sewers~

Sarnpi:Lng

information

is

therefore not

available,

but the City suggests that the environmental

:Lrnpact of its

bypassing

is

minimized

because

of

dilution

of

sewage

by

the

infiltration/inflow

to

which

the

sewer

system

is

subject,

and

because

of

the

h:Lgh flows in the receiving streams during

the

bypass events,

The Agency is

in

support

of

continued

grant

of

variance

from

Section 306.303 and

:306. 304

subject to conditions,

as to all

but

the East Oakwood hypass~

The Agency agrees that the plugging of

the bypasses

without

necessary

sewer

rehabilitation

would result

in a health

hazard

from

basement

backups

which

is more serious

than

that

from

bypassing

of

dilute

sewage.

However,

the

Agency

doubts

whether

grant funding for sewer

rehabilitation

would

be

available,

The

Agency anticipates that

the

City’s

SSES will not

be

submitted

or

approved

before

passage of another

6—12

months,

and “at this time,

funds

for actual construction of the

City’s

project are not available, and funding at any time in the near

future appears slim”.

The variance

conditions

suggested

by

the

Agency

were

the

subject of response by

the

City,

so

their

arguments

will

be

presented

in

tandem

as

to

certain

of

the

conditions,

The

Agency

first

suggests

that

the

City

be

required

to

adhere

to

a

proposed

compliance

schedule

which

would

require

elimination

of

all

overflows

as of

April

1,

1986

if

grant

funds

are

received,

and

as

of

April

1,

1988 if

they

are

not,

upon

penalty

of

imposition

of

a

sewer

ban,

The

City

responded

that

it

could

not

commit

itself

to

the

compliance

schedule

as

proposed

because

of

uncertainty

of

funding

sources,

The

Agency

suggests

that

audible

alarms

be

installed

at

all

lift

stations,

to eliminate unreported bypasses

due

to pump

failure,

blown

fuses,

etc.

The

City

responds

that

the

particular

incident

referred

to in

the

Recommendation

was

a

situation

wherein

an

electrical

malfunction resulted in outage of all

power

to

the

lift station, in which case

an audible alarm would have been as

inoperative as a visual

one.

The

City doubts that installation

of

audible

alarms would be ~cost—effective”, or result in more

rapid

response

than

through

its

practice

of

monitoring

visual

alarms.

53400

---

5

A third condition, that the Springfield Road-Cole Creek

interceptor be permanently repaired,

was not objected to by the

City.

The Agency recommends denial

of variance for the East Oakwood

bypass, as

it believes that to do so would encourage the City to

“add a bypass”

to support new development.

The City responds

that the area is already developed, and was as of 1974 when the

problem sewer

line was installed to serve the area in replacement

of septic

tanks.

The City would not object to having variance

conditioned on twice—yearly sewer cleaning

(as alternatively

suggested by the Agency), and would further agree to obtain

variance relief prior to installation of any further bypasses.

Finally,

as to the requested variance from Section 305.102(a),

the Agency recommends denial because the City’s NPDES permit does

not contain monitoring, sampling,

and reporting conditions.

(One

suggested variance condition unobjectionable to the City was that

monthly overflow reports be submitted in a specified form.)

The Board continues to find that denial of variance would

impose

an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.

Given the City’s

explanation of the East Oakwood problem, variance from Section

306.303 and 306.304 for all

19 overflows will be granted; variance

from Section 305.102(b)

will

be denied as unnecessary.

The real issue in this case is not whether variance should

be granted, but what its duration and conditions should be given

the almost certain unavailability of grant funding.

The Board

agrees that the City must be forced to contemplate and prepare

for unassisted commencement of sanitary sewer rehabilitation,

but

is not inclined to adopt the 1986/1988 schedule proposed by the

Agency.

The Board will grant variance until October

1, 1984,

during which time the City will be required to complete its SSES,

complete design work

so that its actual funding needs have been

determined, devise a plan for funding the necessary work,

and to

present

a construction/compliance schedule.

As to other conditions, the Agency’s suggestion that a

variance contain a sewer ban triggered by violation of variance

conditions is inappropriate.

The Agency itself could impose a

sewer ban at any time, or could seek such relief during the course

of an enforcement action should the variance terms be violated.

The

grant of this variance does not limit

the Agency’s authority

pursuant to Sections 306.402 or 306.403 to place tho~eportions

of the sewer system which have reached hydraulic cap~cityon

restricted

status, or those portions approaching hydraulic

capacity on critical review.

Grant of this variance (and

previous variances)

temporarily excuses non—compliance with the

otherwise applicable provisions of the Act and regulations, but

does not cause

it to “disappear”, and deprive the Agency of the

ability to determine whether additional hook-ons would result

in or contribute to violations of the type which are admitted

in a

53-101

---

6

Finally, the Board will not require installation of audible

alarms,

for the reasons offered by the City.

However,

in that

the City has stated that it is installing hour meters on its

alarms to document the extent of future overflows

(Response p.

2), this installation shall

be included as a condition.

The

balance of the conditions

as suggested will be included in the

Board’s Order.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board in this matter,

ORDER

1.

Petitioner,

the City of East Peoria, is granted variance

from 35

Ill. Mm, Code 306.303 and 306,304 until October

1,

1984,

subject

to the following conditions:

a)

This variance applies only to the 19 overflow

points listed at p.

2, supra

b)

The City shall submit to the Agency

i)

a completed SSES on or before October 1,

1983,

ii)

a completed sewer rehabilitation plan on

or before March

1,

1984,

and

iii)

a construction schedule/compliance plan

on or before August

1,

1984,

detailing how the work

will be funded by the City in the event that the City

is advised by the Agency that federal or state grant

funding is unavailable;

c)

The City shall maintain the Springfield Road to

Cole Creek Interceptor flexible pipe connection in the best

manner practicable until permanent repairs are completed,

Such repairs shall

be commenced and completed in summer,

1983;

d)

The City

shall continue to submit monthly overflow

reports.

Beginning August

1,

1983, these reports shall

additionally include all bypasses,

shall separa~ebypasses

into individual events rather than monthly totals,

and shall

indicate how durations were determined;

e)

The City shall comply with all conditions of

PCB 78—263;

f)

The City shall not install any additional bypasses

without obtaining appropriate variance relief prior to their

installation;

53-102

---

7

g)

The City shall clean the East Oakwood sewer as

necessary to minimize bypassing,

twice

yearly;

and

h)

The City shall install the hour meters on its

existing alarms as referred to on p.

2 of its Response as

expeditiously as is practicable.

2.

Variance from 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 305.102(b)

is denied as

unnecessary.

3.

Within thirty—five

(35) days of the date of this Order,

the City shall execute and send to Steven

M.

Spiegel, Attorney

Advisor,

Enforcement Programs,

Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency,

2200 Churchill Road, Springfield,

Illinois

62706,

a

Certification of Acceptance by which

it agrees to be bound by

the terms and conditions.

This

35 day period shall be held in

abeyance for any period for which this matter is being appealed.

The form of said certification shall be

as follows:

CERTIFICATE

I,

(We),

,

By:

Title

I, Christan L.

Control Board, hereby certify that

thfi above Opinion and Order

was adopted on the ~

g~

‘~.-dayof

___________________,

1983 by

a vote of

5-0

.

7

Christan

Illinois Pollution Control Board

53-103