ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November 18,
1983
VILLAGE
OF SENECA,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 83—76
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
KEITH
R. LEIGH APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER, AND
E.
WILLIAM
HUTTON APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION
AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by 3.
Anderson):
This matter
comes
before the Board on the June
15,
1983
petition
of the Village of Seneca for variance from 35 Ill.
Adm~
Code 306,304 prohibiting overflows
from sanitary sewers.
On
July 18,
1983,
the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(Agency)
filed
its Recommendation in support of variance
subject
to
conditions,
Hearing was held in this matter on
September
15,
1983 in response to the timely-filed objection of Jeanne
Mayfield
of
LaSalle, Illinois.
The
Village of Seneca
(Village),
LaSalle County, operates
a sanitary sewer system tributary to its sewage treatment plant
(STP),
This sewer system
serves approximately 1400
people;
the
balance
of
the population,
about 700 people,
are served by
individual septic systems.
The Village’s sanitary sewer system, which was mainly
constructed during World War II,
is
subject to considerable
infiltration/inflow
(I/I).
This has resulted in sewer
surcharging
and basement backups, and placement of the system on
restricted
status in
May,
1967.
Variance is sought to allow the operation of an existing
sanitary sewer bypass
consisting
of a
7”
square hole cut in
the
top of a
12~
main
sanitary
sewer line, at a point where the sewer,
which lies in the alley right of
way
west
of
Main Street, crosses
Rat
Run Creek.
This point is about
1/2
mile upstream
of the STP’s
discharge into Rat Run Creek; Rat Run Creek is tributary to
the
Illinois River,
54-367
2
The
hole
was originally cut by the Village to allow access
to the pipe
for cleaning purposes.
While the Village asserts the
cut was necessary because the manhole north of the creek had
been removed, the
Agency asserts that it was necessary because
the manhole downstream of the creek was buried, but that the
buried manhole was found and raised in October,
1981.
The Agency
additionally notes
that,
since then,
the hole has been used as
a bypass point.
(Compare Pet.,
p.
2, with Agency Rec.
p.
3.)
The hole is normally closed by a cover secured with a steel
hand.
The Village reports that during storm events, nearby
residents remove the cover to allow overflow of raw sewage into
the creek to prevent basement backups.
The Village estimates
that bypassing is caused to occur during
1” rainfalls, or about 16
times yearly.
Duration of each event is guessed to be 48 hours,
with
a discharge rate of 490 gallons per minute.
Because of the
amount of I/I
to which the system is
subject,
the Village believes
the
loadings of this discharge to be 20 mg/i BOD and 25 mg/I
suspended solids.
At hearing, additional information was presented by
Kenneth
R.
Cline and Bill Graves, who live on south Main Street,
Mr.
Cline, who characterizes himself as “the low one on the
sewer
line”,
related that basement backups have been occuring
in his home since December 24,
1980 whenever the Village gets a
rain
lasting over 20 minutes
(R.
10,
19,
23).
Mr. Graves
concurred with Mr.
Cline, but also stated that “since it’s
happened once,
it takes less and less rain each time to have it
happened
(sic)
again”
(R.
23).
If variance
is granted,
the Village would propose
to
construct a weir box over the cutout hole, to insure that
bypassing occurs only when necessary to prevent backups.
Pursuant
to
the Agency Recommendation,
at hearing the Village agreed to
set the weir box at a position no more than six inches below the
elevation of the low point on the line,
to install
a lock on the
box and to inspect it daily.
The alternative compliance method would involve construction
of
a relief sewer from the point of overflow to the STP,
at a
cost
of
$80,000.
The Village believes that this would not be cost
effective, given the other sewer work necessary on its system.
The Agency noted
in its Recommendation that presently the
Village is
in the Construction Grants Program for upgrading its
WWTP and sewer system.
Essentially, Seneca has
2
grants, one
addressing dry weather
flow and another addressing wet weather
flow.
Presently,
revised plans and specifications are under
review by the Agency.
These plans and specifications deal with
dry weather flow and do not address wet weather facilities.
Upon
approval of the plans and specifications the Agency hopes to
issue the Village
a Step
3 grant.
54-368
3
The Village’s sewer rehabilitation project under the “dry
weather” grant consists of repairing or replacing manholes and
their frames and lids, sealing manholes, disconnecting and
rerouting storm sewer connections,
disconnecting downspounts,
etc.
The sewer system evaluation survey estimates that sufficient
I/I w4ll
be eliminated upstream of the bypass upon completion of
the sewer rehabilitation project to offset the 490 gpm that the
Village claims is the average discharge from the overflow,
However, because sewer rehabilitation projects may not in some
instances eliminate sufficient excess
flows,
the Village plans
to conduct
a flow monitoring
study
upon
completion
of the
rehabilitation project to determine if additional construction, such
as relief sewers, is required.
If
such
construction is required the
Village would need
to amend its Facilities Plan and Plans and
Specifications,
hut the Agency states that grants
funds
for such
additional work “uncertain” at this time.
To date,
the Village has received a Step
1 and Step
2 grant
with costs totaling $171,024, of which $42,756 was the Village’s
share.
It
is estimated that construction costs
for the sewer
rehabilitation will be approximately $290,000 of which 25
or
$72,500 will
be the Village’s share
if a Step
3 grant is obtained.
The Agency does not dispute Petitioner’s $80,000 figure as the
cost of a relief sewer to eliminate surcharging on the 12—inch
interceptor.
The Board notes that, at hearing, the Agency did an unusually
fine job of explaining in “laymen’s terms” the environmental
factors it assessed, operation of a weir box,
and its reasons for
recommending that variance be granted.
Rat Run Creek has been
determined to be
in a degraded condition.
Of the three major
causes
of this degradation, the sewer bypass
at issue is
considered to be the third and least important, since bypassing
occurs during periods of high stream flow with resulting
dilution and better stream aeration.
The other two causes are 1)
the poor quality effluent discharged from the STP, which offers
only primary treatment and which routinely bypasses flows, and
2) since
1/3 of the Village’s homes employ septic systems, that
partially treated sewage is discharged into groundwater
eventually finding its way into the creek.
Progress toward abatement of these latter two pollution
sources is proceeding through the grants program, with STP
upgrading expected to be completed “by 1985”
(R.
15).
The
Agency believes that, given the performance of the existing STP,
immediate elimination of the Main Street bypass probably would
not result in significant recovery of the creek
from its degraded
condition.
Balancing the known health dangers from basement backups
against the environmental impact of overflows to the creek, the
Agency recommends grant of variance provided, among other things,
that the Village
is required to construct the weir box as soon
as possible,
and to enforce its existing sewer use ordinance.
54-369
4
The Board appreciates the feelings espressed at hearing by
Mrs. Mayfield of LaSalle, objecting to continual “temporary
methods” and continuation of pollution of the
Creek, and
hence
the Illinois River.
The Board finds that denial of the requested
variance would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship, as
the immediate and substantial risks to the health of the Main
Street dwellers from basement backups outweighs the benefits
downstream users would experience from immediate but minimal
improvement in the water quality of Rat Run Creek and the Illinois
River.
Variance will
be granted from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.304
until July 1,
1985,
subject to conditions similar to those
suggested by the Agency.
These will include construction of the
weir box by December 31,
1983, continued pursuit of STP and sewer
system rehabilitation through the grants program,
and vigorous
enforcement of the sewer use ordinance’s program for disconnection
of illegal downspouts.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Board in this matter.
ORDER
1.
Petitioner, the Village of Seneca,
is granted variance
from 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 306,304 until July 1,
1985,
to
allow for
operation
of
the existing Main Street sewer bypass,
subject to
the following conditions:
a.
On or before December
31,
1983, the Village shall
construct a weir box over the existing sewer bypass.
In so
doing, the Village shall determine the elevation of the
lowest basement in the vicinity of the sewer line and adjust
the weir to a position no more than six inches below this
elevation.
b.
The Village shall keep the weir box locked.
c.
The Village shall monitor its bypass once each day,
and shall record in writing time of inspection, weather
conditions including accurate rainfall measurements for the
Village, volume of discharge and duration of discharge.
Every attempt should be made to determine the maximum bypass
rate during each bypassing incident.
The above information
shall
be compiled in written form monthly and submitted to
the Agency as an attachment to the Village’s Discharge
Monitoring Report
(DMR).
d.
The Village shall submit a semi—annual report
outlining its progress in enacting and enforcing its sewer
use ordinance.
These reports shall
be
attached
to the
December and June DMR”s, respectively.
54-370
5
e.
The Village shall diligently pursue
upgrading
of
its treatment plant and sewer system,
and shall adhere to
the extent practicable to the schedule
contained in paragraph
16 of the Agency’s Recommendation of July
18,
1983, which is
incorporated herein by reference as if fully set
forth,
2.
Within forty—five days of the date of
this Order,
Petitioner shall execute and forward to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield,
Illinois
62706,
a Certificate of Acceptance and Agreement to be bound to
all terms and conditions of this variance.
This forty—five day
period shall be held in abeyance for any period this matter is
being
appealed.
The form of the certificate shall
be as
follows:
CERTIFICATE
I,
(We),
—________
____________—
,
having read
the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in
PCB 83—76,
dated
__________
____
_____,
understand and accept
the
said Order, realizing that such acceptance renders all terms
and
conditions thereto binding and enforceable.
Petitioner
By:
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Board Member J.
Marlin abstained.
Board Member W. Forcade abstained.
I,
Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board,
hereby certify that the above Opinior~and
Order
was adopte~onthe
~
day of
~
,
1983 by
avoteof~Z)-O
Christan L.
o
tt,
Clerk
Illinois
Pollution Control Board
54-371