ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June 10, 1987
IN THE MATTER OF:
JOINT PETITION OF THE SANITARY
)
DISTRICT OF ELGIN AND THE CITY
)
OF ELGIN, ILLINOIS AND THE
)
PCB 85—222
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
AGENCY FOR EXCEPTION TO THE COMBINED
)
SEWER OVERFLOW REGULATIONS
)
MR. LYLE C. BROWN, SCHNELL, RICHARDS, BROWN, RITT, FREEMAN &
DALTOb~, P.C., APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF
ELGIN AND THE CITY OF ELGIN; AND
MS. HEIDI HANSON APPEARED FOR THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION hGENCY.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by R.C. Flemal):
This matter comes before the Board on the December 30, 1985,
joint petition of the Sanitary District of Elgin (“Sanitary
District”) and the City of Elgin (“City”) (hereinafter
collectively referred to as “Elgin”) and the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”) for exception to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 306.305 (a) and (b) to relieve Elgin from the
requirement to construct and operate certain combined sewer
overflow (CSO) transport and treatment facilities.
For the reasons described below, the Board finds that
Petitioners have made the showings requisite for granting the
relief requested. The relief will accordingly be granted,
subject to conditions as stipulated to by Petitioners and
consistent with the Board’s rules and regulations.
CSO REGULATIONS
The Board’s CSO regulations are contained in 35 Ill. Adm.
Code Subtitle C, Chapter I, Part 306. They were an~endedin R8l—
17, 51 PCB 383, March 24, 1983. Sections pertinent to the
instant matter are Sections 306.305 and 306.361(a). Section
306.305 provides as follows:
All combined sewer overflows and treatment plant bypasses
shall be given sufficient treatment to prevent pollution, or
the violation of applicable water standards unless an
exception has been granted by the Board pursuant to Subpart
D.
78.356
—2—
Sufficient treatment shall consist of the following:
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 average dry weather flow for the
design year, shall receive a minimum of primary
treatment and disinfection with adequate retention time;
and
C)
Flows in excess of those described in subsection (b)
shall be treated, in whole or in part, to the extent
necessary to prevent accumulations of sludge deposits,
floating debris and solids in accordance with 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 302.203, and to prevent depression of oxygen
levels; or
d) Compliance with a treatment program authorized by the
Board in an exception granted pursuant to Subpart D.
Subpart D allows the discharger to file a petition for an
exception either singly, or jointly with the Agency as Elgin has
done. A joint petition may seek an exception based on minimal
discharge impact as provided in Section 306.361(a):
An exception justification based upon minimal discharge
impact shall include, as a minimum, an evaluation of
receiving stream ratios, known stream uses, accessibility to
stream and side land use activities (residential,
commercial, agricultural, industrial, recreational),
frequency and extent of overflow events, inspections of
unnatural bottom deposits, odors, unnatural floating
material or color, stream morphology and results of limited
stream chemical analyses.
Pursuant to 306.361(a) Elgin and the Agency assert that
overflows from its combined storm and sanitary sewer system have
minimal impact on the water quality of, and do not restrict the
use of, the Fox River (the receiving stream).
SUPPORT DOCUMENTS
Petitioners have presented several documents in support of
their petition. Included among these are three analyses and
evaluations of the Elgin CSO’s, the first prepared in 1975 (Ex.
A), the second in 1982 (Ex. B), and the most recent in 1985 (Ex.
C). Petitioners have also provided various overflow inspection
reports (Ex. F, J, and K), monitoring results (Ex. F and G),
copies of the Sanitary District’s pretreatment ordinance (Ex. H)
78-357
—3—
and the City’s zoning ordinances (Response1, August 1, 1986), and
responses to various interrogatories posed by both the Agency
(Ex. D and E) and the Board (Responses, July 21, July 2~,October
1, October 6, and November 24, 1986, and March 25, 1987
).
The Agency asserts that it has been working with Elgin on
this matter since 1975 consistent with the Board’s determination
that “the essential element” in the CSO exception procedure “is
to attempt to establish a partnership between the discharger
seeking relief and the Agency”. Agency Response, March 25, 1987,
at 3, quoting 46 PCB 76. The Agency further quotes the Board,
noting the Board’s statement that “in cooperation, the two are
are to develop the necessary data concerning a) what level of CSO
control is environmentally necessary, and b) what control
strategies, including but not limited to retention and treatment,
are economically and technically feasible”. Id. The Agency
believes that present joint petition is based on these factors as
required by the Board. Agency Response, March 25, 1987, at 3.
BACKGROUND
The Sanitary District includes the municipal boundaries of
the City of Elgin and the Village of South Elgin. According to
the 1980 census, the total population of the Sanitary District
was 73,000. The City’s population was approximately 67,000; the
population of South Elgin was approximately 6,000.
Elgin is served by three treatment plants: the main plant, a
25 million gallon per day (MGD) facility; the west plant, a 1.5
MGD facility; and the north plant, which is being expanded to a
5.75 MGD facility. Only 25 of the City of Elgin is served by
combined sewers; the remaining portion is served by separate
sanitary sewers. All the combined sewers are tributary to the
main plant. There are no combined sewers in South Elgin. R. at
14.
The main plant has an average design capacity of 25 MGD and
a peak design flow capacity of 50 MGD. However, the plant
receives and treats an average dry weather flow (ADWF) of only 14
MGD. This consists of 11 MGD from Elgin and South Elgin,
including 1.6 MGD from the CSO area, and 3 MGD from Streamwood by
1 Date of Response to Interrogatories (hereinafter “Response”) is
the date of filing with the Board.
2 The March 25, 1987, Response is a group response which includes
individual responses of the Sanitary District, Donohué and
Associates, Inc. (“Donohue”) on behalf of the Sanitary District,
and the Agency.
78-358
—4—
contract with the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
Chicago. Sanitary District Response, March 25, 1987.
The system has 16 permitted combined sewer overflows.
Agency Response, March 25, 1987, at 1. However, two of these
outfails have not been operated in a number of years and have
been isolated by a manually operated valve. A third “outfall”
does not discharge directly to the river, but instead feeds into
sewers tributary to another CSO basin. Consequently, only 13
overflows are actually operational. All CSO discharges are
directly into the Fox River. Ex. C at 1.
The Sanitary District owns the three wastewater treatment
plants, ten pumping stations, 33 miles of gravity interceptor
sewer, six miles of force main, and the diversion structures on
the combined sewer system. The City owns all the combined
sewers, all the storm sewers, and all the lateral sewers in the
system. R. at 17.
There are three “wet industries” tributary to the combined
sewer system: Elgin Diamond Products, Shedd’s Food Products, and
Williams Manufacturing. Contaminants from these industries
include: cadmium, cyanide, arsenic, lead, copper, mercury,
nickel, selenium, silver, zinc, tetrachloride, toluline (sic),
1,2—dichloroethane, and vegetable oil. Elgin has a pretreatment
ordinance with which these industries are in compliance except
for Shedd’s. However, Shedd’s was expected to achieve compliance
by January 1986. Ex. D at 2—3.
DOCUMENTATION OF MINIMAL IMPACT
Section 306.361(a) requires that Petitioners seeking a CSO
exception on the basis of minimal discharge impact, as is the
case here, make a number of showings. Pursuant thereto,
Petitioners provide the following information and observations:
Receiving Stream Ratios
Elgin asserts that the flow in the Fox River provides
substantial dilution potential for its CSO discharges. The
drainage area of the Fox River at Elgin is approximately 1,450
square miles and the average flow is approximately 800 cfs or
1,240 MGD; the 10—year, seven—day low flow is approximately 62
cfs or 95.6 MGD.
No actual measurements of CSO discharges have been made.
Instead, various modeling and simulation studies have been
undertaken to estimate the parameters of the CSO discharges.
Among the results are that the simulated total annual overflow is
estimated at 140.6 MG. Ex. B at 11—17 and 11—19. Similarly, 686
MGD would be expected for the theoretical “maximum 30 minute
~g~359
—5—
discharge” rate of a two—year storm, producing a volume of 10.58
MG during the same time frame. Ex. B at 111—6.
First flush3 for a one—year storm is further estimated to be
7 MG and to typically occur within the first thirty minutes of
the rainfall. First flush for a two—year storm is also estimated
to be approximately 11 MG and first flush for a 25—year storm to
be approximately 21 MG. R. at 57—8.
Petitioners also discuss receiving stream ratios in terms of
average annual pollutant loadings. Thus, it is estimated that
the Elgin CSO discharges comprise 0.4 of the annual BOO loadings
on the Fox River at Elgin, 0.3 of the phosphorus loadings, and
0.1 of both the ammonia nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen
loadings. R. at 39; Ex. B at 1—7. It is estimated that a
program of full first flush capture would reduce the BOD,
phosphorus, and ammonia nitrogen loadings to approximately 0.24,
0.16, and 0.07, repectively. Id. at 1—8; R. at 54. An
additional program of expanded primary treatment could further
reduce the BOD loadings to 0.21, but would have no additional
effect on lowering of the phosphorus or ammonia nitrogen
loadings. Id.
Known Stream Uses
Stream uses of the Fox River in the immediate vicinity of
Elgin are contended to be comparatively limited, as least
The Board notes that throughout much of the record there is the
underlying assumption that first flush is equal to 2.5 times
ADWF. Thus, for example, reference to a treatment goal of 12.5
ADWF is based on the assumption that this includes treatment of
both first flush and an additional 10 times ADWF, pursuant to
Section 306.305. A specific example is provided in Elgin’s
Response of July 21, 1986, at 2:
Section 306.305 indicates that flows up to 2.5 times
the average dry weather flow receive full treatment,
that the first flush receive full treatment, and
additional flows from 2.5 to 12.5 times the average
dry weather flow receive primary treatment.
(Emphasis in original).
As the Agency notes (Agency Response, March 25, 1987, at 2—
3), the equation of 2.5xAWDF with first flush derives from a now
superseded Agency guideline for estimating first flush.
Nevertheless, because much of the record in the Elgin CSO
preceeding was accumulated during the period when the 2.SxADWF
guideline was in use, many references to it remain and its use
has persisted even though the guideline has been superseded.
78-360
—6—
relative to other reaches of the river. In part this is related
to limited accessibility (see below) and the urban character of
the stream side area. It is also noted that the Fox River in the
Elgin area is unsuitable for power boat usage due to the presence
of several dams which lack lifts and the shallowness of the
river. R. at 43. It is further contended that other stream
uses, such as swimming and canoeing, are limited.
Elgin does use the Fox River above the CSO area for its
drinking water supply. However, no other downstream
municipalities in close proximity to the discharges do.
The contended limited use of the Fox River in the immediate
vicinity of Elgin apparently contrasts with the greater use in
the less urban and less controlled sections of the river, both
upstream and downstream of Elgin. The Board notes in this
context that the upstream reaches includes the Fox—Chain—of—Lakes
and the downstream area includes many reaches of highly scenic,
recreational, and aquatic habitat value.
Accessibility to Stream Side Land Use Activities
Stream side access to the Fox River in the vicinity of the
CSO outfalls is limited. Most of the near stream side land use
is commercial or industrial. Ex. C. Additionally, through major
portions of the CSO reach railroad lines, one on each side of the
river approximately 15 feet from the river bank, restrict public
access. R. at 78. Also, there are no public launching ramps for
boats or other significant public access points, and there are no
beaches anywhere within the Kane County reach of the Fox River.
R. at 43; Ex. C. at 9.
The main exception is the Douglas Avenue Basin, where one
outfall is in a residential area and one outfall is by a city
park and the city library and civic center. Ex. C. at 6. Most
of the undeveloped land is stated to be unsuitable for future
development because of its topography, proximity to the railroad,
or limited access.
Frequency and Extent of Overflow Events
There have been no actual measurements made of the frequency
of overflows from the combined sewers in Elgin. Ex. D at 4.
However, Elgin asserts tr~atall rainfalls in excess of 0.04
inches per hour presently produce some type of overflow event in
the Elgin system. R. at 44. Such rainfall events occur on the
average for 182 hours each year, based on climatic records. Ex.
A at Figure 2. Due to variation in conditions at the time of
actual individual rainfalls, Elgin estimates that the
corresponding number of hours during which CSO events occur could
range from 109 hours to 273 hours per year. Donohue Response,
March 25, 1987, at 6.
—7—
Inspections of Outfalls (Bottom Deposits, Odors, etc..)
Twelve of the CSO outfalls were inspected by Sanitary
District consultants in May 1985 after an extended dry period and
in June 1985 following a 0.65 inch rainfall. Ex. C at 14—22.
Nine of the CSO outfalls were inspected by the Agency in May 1986
after an extremely wet weekend which followed an extended dry
period. During this inspection no outfalls were observed to be
discharging. Ex. K. The results of the inspections were
essentially consistent: in all cases it was stated that there was
no sludge, sewage debris, septic odor, floating material, or
color. Ex. C at 14—17; R. at 45—46, 102—103.
Elgin has also conducted some limited sampling of bottom
deposits upstream and downstream of the CSO outfails. Comparison
of these data for BOD and volatile solids indicates no
significant differences. Ex. B at 11—26; Ex. C at 21.
Additionally, Elgin has examined Northeastern Illinois Planning
Commission (NIPC) reports on the character of bottom deposits and
benthic life of the Fox River in general. On this basis Elgin
concludes that there is “no significant variation in bottom
deposits or benthic life between areas upstream and downstream of
Elgin.” R. at 42; Ex. B at I—S.
The Agency also sampled bottom aquatic life during its May
1986 inspection. The Agency concluded that although the
calculated macroinvertebrate biotic index (MBI) values for the
stations were “indicative of degraded biological communities”,
such a situation “is not atypical of urban streams and may be
partially due to scouring of the river bottom.” Ex. K. With the
exception of one bare area and another station with an MBI of
5.5, the MBIs for the other stations ranged from 8.6 to 11.0. An
MBI between 7.5 to 10.0 is classified as a “limited aquatic
resource.” Two studies provided by the Agency of the Fox River
area in general found that the closest MBIs upstream and
downstream of Elgin were categorized as “moderate aquatic
resources” with values less than 7.0.
The Agency summarizes its evaluation of the outfalls and the
river by noting that “we could not identify any direct
attributable impact in the Fox River due to the CSO’s”. R. at
105.
Stream Morphology
At Elgin the normal width of the Fox River is 200 to 300
feet and the channel depth is approximately 4 feet. Stream
discharge is partially controlled by a dam located approximately
six miles upstream at Algonquin. Two additional dams occur in
the CSO area: the Kimball Street dam in Elgin which is upstream
from the CSO outfalls and the South Elgin dam which is downstream
from the CSO outfalls. Both dams slow the river flow and hold
back pools. Ex. C. at 22.
78-362
—8—
Trees at various locations overhang the river and, depending
on water level, have the potential to trap floating debris and to
promote ice jams. However, the shorelines immediately downstream
of the CSO outfalls were inspected in May and June, 1985 (see
above), and no sanitary debris was observed. Ex. C. at 22.
Stream Chemical Analyses
Elgin regularly conducts monitoring of water quality,
including sampling stations located within the reaches of the Fox
River to which the CSOs discharge. R. at 19; Ex. G. Sampling is
conducted weekly, with different parameters sampled on a four—
week cycle. It is in part based on these data, and in part on
data collected and modeled by NIPC, that Petitioners calculate
the relative pollutant loadings of the Elgin CSO on the Fox
River, as noted above.
Elgin has also gathered dissolved oxygen (DO) data
specifically for its CSO analysis. These data show that DO
depressions occurred during rainfall events. However, the
depressions occurred both upstream and downstream of the CSO
outfalls and therefore appear to be generally related to drainage
rather than to an effect of the combined sewer overflows
themselves. Excursions below the standard of 5 mg/l were also
noted, but were unrelated to storm events. Rather, the
excursions seem to be related to algae production and respiration
in conjunction with warm weather temperatures. R. at 48—50; Ex.
B at 1—6.
EGUIVALENCY ARGUMENT
The Elgin CSO situation provides a circumstance not commonly
encountered by the Board in its previous consideration of CSO
matters. In the common CSQ circumstance, the factor ‘which most
seriously limits ability to treat combined sewer discharges is
the capacity of the treatment plant. Most plants have capacities
only marginally above that necessary to handle the ADWF, and thus
are not capable of providing normal treatment to the large flow
volumes associated with major influxes from the storm sewer
portions of the combined sewer system.
The Board’s CSO regulations implicitly recognize this
circumstance in requiring that certain flows above ADWF be
captured for later full treatment, presumably when the plant is
no longer on overload, and that other additional flows receive
primary treatment (i.e., not full treatment) at a minimum.
The Elgin circumstance differs from this “norm” in that the
Elgin main treatment plant, to which all the Elgin combined
sewers are tributary, has a substantial capacity above ADWF.
Specifically, the main plant has an average design capacity
78-363
—9—
approximately twice that of the ADWF and a peak design flow
capacity approximately 3.5 times that of the ADWF. Elgin is thus
able to provide full treatment, to a 5/5 BOD/TSS level, to a
greater portion of the flows which exceed the ADWF than is
normally the case. This level is currently 10.3 times the ADWF,
all of which receives full treatment. R. at 71.
Neverthless, Elgin is limited in its ability to treat all of
the flows in excess of the ADWF. This is partially related to
the fact that large CSO events exceed even 10.3 times ADWF.
Moreover, full treatment is also limited by conveyance capacity:
the existing sewerage system is insufficient to convey to the
plant the full discharge encountered at peak influx times.
Thus, Elgin is not able to capture all of the combined sewer
discharge required by Section 306.305. However, it does provide
a greater degree of treatment than is required by Section 306.305
to that portion which it does capture.
With the above background as perspective, and without
consideration as to whether or not the showings requisite to
Section 306.361(a) have been adequately made, Petitioners argue
that the current system actually accomplishes removal of
pollutants comparable to the minimum levels required by Section
306.305, although admittedly not by the means specified under
Section 306.305. In support of this contention, the Sanitary
District calculated the total annual BOD5 discharge which would
result if the treatment processes required by Section 306.305
were instituted. Based on an average annual rainfall of 31.82
inches, a total annual runoff of 476 MG would be available for
treatment. According to Petitioners, institution of the
treatment processes required under Section 306.305 would result
in the following discharges:
Complete treatment:
238 MG x 5 mg/i x 8.34
=
9,925 lb/year
First40 flushMG
x 5treatment:mg/l
4x
8.34
=
1,668 lb/year
Primary treatment
130 MG x 30 mg/i x 8.34
=
32,526 lb/year
The Board notes that first flush is assumed to be 2.5 times
ADFW. See also footnote 3.
78-364
—10—
No treatment
68 MG x 35 mg/1* x 8.34
=
19,849 lb/year
Total Annual BOD5 Discharge
=
63,968 lb/year
*Observed average concentration after first flush has
subsided.
Response, July 21, 1986
Conversely, the 476 MG annual runoff currently receives the
following treatment with these resulting discharges:
Complete treatment:
360 MC x 5 mg/i x 8.34
=
15,012 lb/year
No treatment
116 MG x 50 mg/l** x 8.34
=
48,372 lb year
Total Annual BOD5 Discharge
=
63,834 lb/year
**Qbserved average concentration over time including the
quantity of BOD2 associated with first flush.
Response, July 21, 1986
Thus the current pollutant capture capability, at least as
measured by BOD~,of the Elgin system is virtually identical to
the amount required to be captured by the system were it in
compliance with Section 306.305. The Agency summarizes its
perspective on this matter by noting that “we are comfortable
with the existing level of treatment”. R. at 105. Moreover, it
is noted that pollutant capture capability would increase even
further should Elgin undertake replacement of the force main
located between pump station 131 and the main treatment plant
(see following).
PUMP STATION *31 AND ITS FORCE MAIN
Petitioners recognize that the principal conveyance
limitation existing in the Elgin system is the capacity of the
force main located between pump station #31 at Wellington Street
and the main treatment plant. R. at 61, 106. Replacement of
this force main, with some attendant modifications at either end
of the force main, would allow Elgin to increase its treatment
level by providing greater conveyance of combined sewer
discharges to the main plant. This increased level of treatment
would offer a corresponding decrease in the quantity and increase
in the quality of the remaining CSO discharge.
The cost of upgrading the force main is approximately
$2,000,000. Petitioners argue that this expenditure is not cost—
effective at this time. Agency Response, March 25, 1987, at 2.
78.36~
—11—
However, Petitioners do commit to replacement of the force main
and upgrading of associated structures as a stipulated condition
of the exception. These improvements would increase the minimum
wet weather flow rate from 13 MGD to 16.5 MGD. Ex. I at 1 and 3;
Agency Response, March 25, 1987, at 2. According to the
stipulation, replacement and upgrading would occur when the force
main requires replacement or the projected annual repairs exceed
in expense 50 of the cost of replacement of the force main.
Id. Additionally, the Agency would be able to monitor the
situation though receipt of monthly summaries of all bypassing
and repair and maintenance of pump station *31 and the force
main. Id.
COMPLIANCE OPTIONS
Although not required pursuant to Section 306.361(a),
Petitioners have provided extensive data on the costs which would
be encountered were Elgin to implement system changes necessary
to come into complete or partial compliance with Section
306.305. A large number of different scenarios have been
developed, the principal of which are summarized below.
Complete sewer separation was estimated to cost $20,000 per
acre. The total combined sewer area is 1,345 acres, which would
produce a total construction cost of $26,900,000. Based on a
service life of 50 years, an interest rate of 8.5 percent, and an
annual operating cost of $90,000, the annualized cost for this
system would be $2,416,000. Donohue Response, March 25, 1987, at
3.
Capture of the first flush, which for a one—year storm is
estimated to result in a total volume of approximately 7 MG,
would require enlarging the conveyance capacity of the sewer
system and/or construction of holding facilities. Due to the
large flow rates at which first flush occurs, Elgin believes that
it is impractical to modify the conveyance capacity to allow
routing of the full first flush to a central facility. Thus,
holding sites have been postulated, where possible, immediately
adjacent to the overflow sewers. Since all of the sites are in
fully developed commercial/residential areas, construction of the
holding facilities would require the acquisition and clearing of
existing structures. In addition, the holding facilities would
need to be below ground, covered, and equipped with pumping and
cleaning and odor control devices. The construction cost for a
system capable of accommodating the full first flush for a one
year storm event is estimated at $18,050,000, with a total annual
cost of $1,789,000. Donahue Response, March 25, 1987, at Table
I.
To estimate the costs for primary treatment of 10 times
ADWF, a general review of the existing diversion/interceptor
78-366
—12—
systems was conducted to determine what modifications would be
necessary to collect and transport a flow of 16.5 MGD. It was
determined that with one exception the interceptor sewers were
adequate to transport the peak flows, but that all of the
diversion structures would require modification or replacement to
provide adequate diversion capacity and/or accurate flow
control. The most significant restriction to transporting the
required flow rate was found to be the existing pump station *31,
which has a current discharge capacity to the Main Plant of
approximately 13.4 MGD. Additional equipment also necessary
would be primary clarifiers, a chlorine tank, and a force main..
The cost estimate for this system expansion is estimated at
$4,840,000. The Joint Petitioners do not consider this
expenditure to be cost effective at this time, since 1) complete
treatment is furnished to a significant portion of the flow which
is required to receive only primary treatment, resulting in
pollutant reductions equivalent to that required by Section
306.305(b) and 2) primary treatment of the remaining portion
(approximately 3.1 MGD) will not result in any measurable benefit
in water quality. The Sanitary District and the City have
agreed, however, that should the force main need “major work” it
will indeed be cost—effective to replace the force main and
increase pumping capacity at that time, thus eliminating the need
for an overflow from the pump station.
In addition, Elgin analyzed a number of partial solutions
including separation of two of four sanitary sewer basins
contributing to the combined system at a cost of $572,000. Flow
in these two basins comprises the majority of the flow measured
in the CSO basin to which they are tributary and this basin (Lake
Street) contributes 0.56 MGD (35) of the total dry weather flow
of 1.6 MGD in the CSO area.
Information was also provided concerning the estimated cost
for capturing 25, 50 and 75 percent of the first flush of the 1.2
inch per hour storm. Economies of scale dictate that the most
economical partial capture system would involve full capture at
certain cost—effective locations rather than partial capture at
multiple locations. The three most cost—effective locations for
capture of first flush, the Lord Street, Bluff City Boulevard, &
Locust Street basins, would allow 79 capture of first flush and
represent 77 of the full capture system cost, or $13,160,000.
50 of the first flush could be captured from the Lord Street &
Bluff City Boulevard basins at a cost of $7,700,000, and 25 of
first flush could be captured at the Lord Street Basin at a cost
of $4,020,000. Donohue Response, March 25, 1987, at 4.
CONCLUSION
The Board determines that Petitioners have shown pursuant to
35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.361(a) that exception to 35 Ill. Mm. Code
78-367
—13—
306.305(a), as it relates to first flush of storm flows, and to
35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.305(b) would produce minimal impact on the
receiving stream. Accordingly, the Board will grant the
exception. The Board further will accept the conditions as
agreed to by Petitioners.
ORDER
The City of Elgin and the Elgin Sanitary District are hereby
granted an exception from the treatment requirements of 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 306.305(a), as such provision relates to first flush of
storm flows, and from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.305(b) for combined
sewer overflows to the Fox River, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The Elgin S.D. will transport maximum wet weather flow
to the treatment plant via the pump station #31 and
force main from Wellington Street to the treatment
plant, but in no event shall the pump station and force
main deliver less than 13 MGD of wet weather flow to the
treatment plant prior to and during any bypassing at
Wellington Street pump station 131.
2. The Elgin S.D. shall submit to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, with its monthly
Discharge Monitoring Reports the following information:
a. beginning and ending times (to the nearest 5
minutes) of each period of bypassing at pump station
131;
b. average flow rate in units of MGD through the force
main at station #31 for each bypassing event
described above; and
c.. a summary of all repair and maintenance of the pump
station #31 and the force main between Wellington
Street and the treatment plant.
3. The Sanitary District of Elgin, at such time as the
force main between pump station #31 and the treatment
plant requires replacement, or projected annual repairs
exceed in expense 50 of the cost of replacement of the
force main, shall upgrade the pump station, force main
and treatment plant to the extent necessary to provide a
minimum of 16.5 MGD of transport, primary treatment and
disinfection for flow tributary to the pump station.
4. The Sanitary District of Elgin shall continue its
program of inspection and maintenance of the combined
78-368
—14—
sewer diversion structures and shall keep records of the
inspections and maintenance. It shall also continue to
actively enforce all provisions of its pretreatment
ordinance.
5. The City of Elgin shall continue its program to reduce
the quantity of inflow and infiltration and its program
to replace combined sewers with separate sanitary
sewers.
6. This grant of exception does not preclude the Agency
from exercising its authority to require as a permit
condition a) a CSO monitoring program sufficient to
assess compliance with this exception and any other
Board regulations, including Section 306.305(c); and b)
other controls if needed for compliance, including
compliance with water quality standards.
7. This grant of exception is not to be construed as
affecting the enforceability of any provisions of this
exception, other Board regulations, or the Act.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Board Members Bill Forcade and J. Theodore Meyer dissented.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the ~
day of
_____________________,
1987, by a
vote of 4I—,~
Ill
s Pollution Control Board
7g~369
