St. Joseph Energy Center backwash permit to route to Nesbittani Ditch tabled for more data

DLZ engineer Samantha Smirka Rutschland asked the St. Joseph County Drainage Board to approve a permit to reroute the Saint Joseph Energy Center's water-treatment backwash from the city of South Bend's sanitary system to the Nesbittani Ditch.

Rutschland said the plant's backwash currently averages roughly 1.2'to 1.5 million gallons per month as a monthly average and is discharged intermittently (about every other week). She told the board the treated backwash would pass through two existing retention basins, be moved by a lift station and force main to a gravity pipe, and enter the ditch; she said expected residual chlorine would be "less than 0.02 milligram liters per day." She said the project will include a riprap-protected ditch outlet and that other permitting steps are in process.

Town and project representatives emphasized regulatory review: staff said the proposal must meet IDEM and NPDES/MPDES constituent requirements and that the town has coordinated with IDEM. The applicants and town also said they have hydraulic models (1D and 2D) for the ditch that can be used to test downstream effects, and that SJEC has previously discharged to the ditch under an older permit (around 2015'16), which the town cited for context.

Board members pressed on operational details and precedent. A board member asked whether the monthly total would be released into the ditch in a short interval or slowly over days; presenters responded the retention basins provide a retention time and the lift pump rate is small (applicants described a scheduled lift-pump operational rate of about 35 gallons per minute). Another board member warned that approving even a small discharge could set a precedent for higher industrial discharges and asked how future larger requests would be handled. Town representatives said the existing hydraulic model and permitting process would allow evaluation of larger requests.

Board staff also noted an administrative gap: the temporary application in the packet contained an end date in June, and staff told the applicant that a permanent discharge application (no end date) is required for ongoing discharge after June with specifics on pipe size and discharge rate. The applicant said she would update the form and provide the requested information.

After discussion, a board member moved to table the permit request until applicants provide the permanent-discharge application, confirmed pump/discharge rates and frequency, and evidence from the hydraulic model showing downstream impacts; the board voted in favor and tabled the item.

The board did not take a final approval; next steps are for the applicant to submit the requested materials and for staff to run the proposed rates through the existing hydraulic model.