ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May

6,

1976

BLOOMINGTON AND NORMAL SANITARY

)

DISTRICT,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 76—52

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Young):

This matter comes before the Board on

the amended variance

petition filed April

1,

1976 by the Bloomington and Normal

Sanitary District

(District)

seeking relief

from Rule 602(d) (3)

of the Board’s Water Pollution Rules and Regulations

(Rules).

An Agency Recommendation was filed with the Board on April

19,

1976.

No hearing was held

in this matter.

Rule 602(d) (3) establishes a compliance date of December

31, 1975 for Rule 602(c), which requires

in part that all com-

bined sewer overflows shall be given sufficient treatment to

prevent pollution or

a violation of applicable water quality

standards.

The District’s NPDES permit contains a schedule

for bringing the combined sewer overflows into compliance and

this schedule keys all dates and the final effluent limitations

to dates after the award of

a federal or state grant for the

project.

In the meantime,

the District

is required by the NPDES

permit

to maintain optimum operating efficiency and convey

as much

flow to its plant for treatment as possible.

The Bloomington and Normal Sanitary District is a municipal

corporation which provides wastewater treatment for an area with

a population of 65,000 people.

The older portions of the District

are served by combined sewer systems while the newer areas have

separate sanitary and storm sewer systems.

A system of nine

interceptors collects sewage from these systems and transports

it

to the treatment plant, which has a maximum hydraulic capacity

of

22 MGD.

The average dry weather flow of the system to the treat-

ment plant

is approximately

9.55 MGD.

During periods

of wet weather, overflows may occur at the

location of the nine interceptors

and a bypass may occur at the

treatment plant.

All overflows and bypasses discharge into Sugar

Creek from which the District regularly takes grab samples

to

perform dissolved oxygen determinations.

During 1975,

the District

alleges dissolved oxygen levels in Sugar Creek, during and after

21

—

375

---

—2—

rainfall periods when bypassing and overflows could have occurred,

did not fall below 6.0 mg/i.

To meet the Board’s regulations and the requirements of its

NPDES permit for treatment of dry weather flows,

the District

has received a grant to upgrade the treatment plant.

Some addi-

tional interceptor sewers will be constructed and the treatment

plant bypass will be eliminated.

This construction is estimated

to cost $11,900,000.

Bids will be taken

in June of 1976 and

after construction is completed,

full treatment will be given

to

a maximum flow of

32 MGD with primary treatment and disinfection

given

to an additional 42 MGD.

The District has also applied for grant funds

to provide

primary treatment and disinfection for a minimum of an additional

ten times the average design flow.

The Agency

is now evaluating

the application for the coming fiscal year and will announce the

grant fund priority schedule shortly.

Upon receipt of

a grant

offer for the preparation of a Step

I Facilities Plan,

a further

analysis of the system will be made.

A very preliminary study

has indicated that a minimum of 18,000 lineal

feet of 48-54”

additional

interceptors will be required to transport the over-

flows

to new treatment centers to be constructed to treat the

overflows.

This overflow project is now estimated to cost

$9,000,000,

and the District alleges an unreasonable hardship

would be placed on its taxpayers

if it were forced to proceed in

advance of receiving any grant

funds,

since no reimbursement

is

permitted under the applicable Federal and State Grant Regulations

if

a project is initiated prior

to receipt and acceptance of

a

grant offer.

The Agency has recognized the fact that many municipalities

and sanitary districts throughout the State have not met and

cannot presently meet the December

31,

1975 compliance date.

On

December

22,

1975,

the Agency filed an Amended Petition for Regu-

latory Change

(R75-l5) with the Board specifically requesting that

the date for complying with Rule 602(d)

(3)

be extended until July

1,

1977, provided a grant application had been filed before

December

31,

1975.

Although the Board has not taken final action

on this proposal,

the Agency submits that the District has estab-

lished sufficient hardship to entitle it to a variance.

We are disposed to grant relief.

The District will soon take

bids on

a construction project to greatly improve its treatment

plant facilities and to eliminate the bypass which now occurs at

the treatment plant.

The District also plans

to correct its com-

bined sewer overflow problem, but is presently waiting for grant

funds

to proceed with the planning and construction.

Because the

District would be precluded from any reimbursement from grant funds

if they were to proceed in advance of a grant award, we believe an

unreasonable hardship would be placed on the District by requiring

the massive capital outlays necessary for compliance without first

allowing the District to obtain assistance from existing grant

programs.

21—

376

---

—3—

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

1.

The Bloomington and Normal Sanitary District is granted

variance from the compliance date for combined sewer overflows

as established by Rule 602(d) (3) of the Water Pollution Rules

and Regulations.

Such variance

is granted until July 1,

1977,

or such date as may be adopted by the Board in consideration

of the Agency Regulatory Proposal

(R75-l5), whichever is later.

2.

The District

is required during this period to maintain

optimum operating efficiency and convey as much combined sewer

flow to its plant for treatment as

is possible.

3.

This variance will immediately terminate if the District

is offered a grant during this period and the District does not

respond with appropriate action to bring it into compliance.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan L.

Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, here4y certify the above Opinion and Order were

adopted o

the

~

~‘

day of

1976 by a

vote of

__________

Illinois Pollution C

1 Board