ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February
6,
1992
CITY OF OGLESBY,
Petitioner,
)
V.
)
~PCB86—3
(CSO Exception)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
p
)
Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE
BOARD
(by J. Anderson):
This matter
conies before the Board on the February 4,
1991
filing of a second amended petition by the City of Oglesby
(“Oglesby”)
for exception to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 306.305(a)
and
(b)
of the Board’s combined sewer overflow (“CSO”) regulations.
In
support of its petition, Oglesby submitted Report of Monitoring
Program to Comply with Illinois Pollution Control Board Order No.
86-3, February 5th,
1987,
(September,
1990)
as well as a
supplement to the report which was dated January,
1991.1
The
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency’t)
filed its
response to Oglesby’s petition on December 13,
1991.
(Amended
Pet.
Exs. B and C).
The Agency recommends that the Board grant
Oglesby’s request for an exception from 35 Ill.Adm. Code
306.305(a)
as it relates to first flush storm flows,
and to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 306.305(b),
subject to conditions.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January
2,
1986, Oglesby filed a petition for exception
to 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 306.305(a) and
(b)
of the Board’s CSO
regulations.
On February 5,
1987, the Board granted the City of
Oglesby (“Oglesby”)
a temporary exception from 35 Ill. Adm. Code
306.305(a)
and
(b)
of the Board’s combined sewer overflow
(“CSO”)
regulations.
Condition 2 of the February 5,
1987 Order specified
that the temporary exception would terminate on March
1,
1990,
if
Oglesby did not submit an amended petition for permanent
exception on or before that date.
The Board also required that
Oglesby 1)
eliminate all ponding below CSO outfalls 0—1,
0-2,
and
0-3 or justify continued ponding (Condition 3(c)),
2)
continue
its street sweeping program and proposed program of reducing
infiltration and inflow,
inspection
of. diversion chambers, and
construction of storm sewers
(Condition 3(d)); and 3)
on a
biannual basis perform the inspections specified in 35 Iii.
Adm.
1For a more detailed review of the background of this case,
please refer to the Board’s original February
5,
1987 Opinion and
Order
as well
as
the
October
15,
1987,
and November
29,
1990~
Orders, which are hereby incorporated by reference.
130—01
2
Code 306.361(a)
and further measure and test the overflow events
at CSO 0-1,
0-2, and 0-3 to determine their frequency,
extent and
quality (Condition 3(e)).
Because Oglesby did not submit an
amended petition by the March
1,
1990 deadline, the Board
relinquished its jurisdiction in the matter and closed the docket
on June 7,
1990.
In response to the Board’s June 7,
1990 Opinion and Order,
Oglesby filed a Motion for Reconsideration and an Amended
Petition on June 29,
1990.
In the Motion for Reconsideration and
accompan’ying Amended Petition, Oglesby requested the Board to
reconsider its June 7,
1990 order, enter an order retaining
jurisdiction, and extend its temporary exception from 35 Ill.Adm.
Code 306.305(a)
and
(b)
for nine months
(i.e. until March
1,
1991),
so that it could complete its inspections and monitoring
and file a second amended petition for a permanent CSO exception
pursuant to Condition
2 of the Board’s February 5,
1987 Order.
Oglesby also filed its Monitoring Program Report covering
overflow events in June,
July, and August,
1990 (Exhibit B).
On November 29,
1990, the Board vacated its June 7,
1990
Order that had we relinquished jurisdiction in this matter, and
granted Oglesby a temporary exception, until February 3,
1991,
from 35 111. Adm. Code 306.305(a)
and from 35 Ill.
Adni.
Code
306.305(b).
The Board also required that Oglesby
1)
inspect the
ravines blow all outfalls for ponding at least once and, with the
exception of CSO 0-4,
eliminate all ponding or justify in its
amended petition that elimination is technically infeasible or
economically unreasonable (Condition 3(c));
2) inspect.below the
outfalls at least once for unnatural bottom deposits, odors,
unnatural floating material or color, stream morphology,
and
results of limited stream chemical analysis; and
3) measure that
test overflows at CSO outfalls 01,
02, and 03
(condition 3(e)).
In making this ruling we assumed that the Agency agreed to
Oglesby’s monitoring program and that the Agency would be
reviewing Oglesby’s data during the extension.
We asked the
Agency to notify us within 30 days, via a Motion for
Reconsideration,
if this understanding is incorrect.
If,
on the
other hand, the Agency did agree to the monitoring program, we
asked
it notify the Board if the date by which it will complete
its review of the data was not compatible with the November 29,
1990 Order.
As previously stated, the Agency filed its response
on December 13,
1991.
BACKGROUND
At the June 20,
1986 hearing in this matter, the Agency
expressed several concerns with regard to Oglesby’s planned
improvements to its sewerage system.
The Agency’s concerns
included the following:
1.
treatment plant hydraulic capacities upon the addition
130=02
3
of one primary clarifier and one final clarifier and
the upgrading of the trickling filter at Oglesby’s
waste water treatment plant;
2.
the potential effects on overflows by an expansion of
an area located to the west of the City near the
intersection of Interstate Highway 39 and Oglesby Spur
Road;
3.
lack of documentation to support Oglesby’s claim that
CSO 0-5 is a tributary to a combined sewer area;
4.
the separation of storm water from sanitary sewage in
the remaining combined areas of the Oglesby; and
5.
localized impacts, including aesthetic problems,
at
CSOs 0—1,
0—2,
0—3, and 0—3A.
(June 20,
1986 transcript pp.
123—125)
Th.e Board was also concerned with granting Oglesby a
permanent exception.
Accordingly,
as previously summarized in
part, when the Board issued its Opinion and Order in this matter
on February 5,
1987,
it granted a temporary exception and
required Oglesby to comply with the following conditions:
1.
comply with the provisions of 35
Ill.
Adni.
Code
306.361(b)
and
(c) or justify the inapplicability of
the required evaluations
(Condition 3(a);
2.
unless authorized by the Board,
forego expansion of the
service area tributary to the combined sewers except
for residential hookups that do not exceed
15
population equivalents
(Condition 3(b)
)2;
3.
eliminate all ponding below CSO 0—1,
0-2,
and 0-3 or
justify the continued ponding (Condition 3(c));
4.
continue the street sweeping program and proposed
program of reducing infiltration and inflow,
inspection
of diversion chambers, and construction of storm sewers
(Condition 3(d)); and
2On October
15,
1987,
the Board modified this condition and
granted authorization to Oglesby to seek,
and the Agency to issue
permits for, additional connections to existing sewers which serve
the area located near the intersection of Interstate Highway 39 and
Oglesby Spur Road,
subject to certain conditions.
(see City of
Oglesby
V.
IEPA, PCB 86—3,
p.
4,
82 PCB 246
(October 15,
1987)).
130—03
4
5.
on a biannual basis, perform the inspections specified
in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.361(a)
and further measure and
test the overflow events at CSO 0-1,
0—2, and 0-3 to
determine their frequency,
extent and quality
(Condition 3(e)).
Since the Board’s February 5,
1987 Board Order, and in
response to the Board’s and Agency’s concerns enunciated therein,
Oglesby acquired.financing by issuing $1,800,000 in sewage
revenue bonds for capital improvements to its sewage collection
system a~idtreatment plant that were outlined in its original CSO
petition.
(Amended Pet. par.
8,
Ex. C).
On May 13,
1988,
Oglesby initiated construction of the improvements.
(Amended
Pet. par.
9).
It completed such construction in January of 1990.
(Amended Pet. par.
9).
In addition to the above improvements, Oglesby has taken the
following action3:
1.
spent $180,000 to modify a’lift station and to
construct and install a forcemain directly from the
lift-station to the sewage treatment plant at the
western part of the Oglesby where most of Oglesby’s
growth is expected (Amended Pet. par. bc,
Ex. A par.
9B);
2.
constructed a lift—station and forcemain to collect and
process the sanitary sewage through its collection
system and avoid
a discharge of sanitary sewage through
CSO 0-5
(Amended Pet. par.
12D);
3.
installed storm sewers in every instance were it has
constructed streets with combined sewers since June 20,
1986 (Amended Pet. pars.
1OD,
l2D,
Ex. A par.
7);
4.
constructed bar screens at ten diversion structures
(Amended Pet.
par.
11B, Ex. A par.
5);
5.
accepted bids for its 1991 street construction projects
wherein one-half mile of additional streets shall be
reconstructed and storm sewers shall be installed to
separate storm water an sanitary sewage along the
streets
(Amended Pet. pars. bE,
12D);
31n addition to
the construction,
Oglesby
states
that
two
events
have, occurred
since
its
original
petition
which
have
affected
its sewerage
system.
First,
a
10 percent decrease
in
population since 1980 has caused a reduction in the quantity of dry
weather flow.
(Amended Pet, par.
bOA).
Second, NSM,
Inc.
a large
volume industrial user has ceased operations.
(Amended Pet.
par.
•lOB).
130—04
5
6.
accepted $129,000 in bids for the renovation of five
lift stations, three of which have inadequate pumping
capacity to pump excessive flow back into the sewage
collection system and which thus, affect the amount of
sewage directed to CSO 0-i. and two of which affect the
amount of sewage directed to CSO 0-4 (Amended Pet.
pars.
bOF,
12E);
7.
enacted an ordinance prohibiting the discharging of
downspouts into sewers (Amended Pet. par.
12D); and
8.
maintained its street sweeping program to remove debris
from the streets before it enters the sewers,
maintained its sewer cleaning program, continued its
residential downspout inspection to prevent storm water
from residential properties being deposited into the
sewers, and continued its bar screen inspection program
to clean the screens of trapped solid wastes
(Amended
Pet. pars.
lOG—I,
12E,
Ex. A pars.
5, 8); and
9.
established a plan to alleviate ponding at CSO 0-2 by
depositing rocks or rip-rap below the outfall during
the Spring of 1991.
(Amended Pet. pars.
lic,
12E).
As a result of the above improvements, all dry weather
overflows at CSO 0-5 and 0-3A have been eliminated and sewage
that was previously discharged is now collected and pumped
through Oglesby’s sewage treatment system.
(Amended Pet. pars.
llA,
l2E,
Ex. A par.
9A).
In addition, all sanitary sewage from
the west end is pumped to Oglesby’s treatment plant without
infiltrating
Oglesby’s sanitary sewer tributaries.
(Amended Pet.
pars. bC,
l2B).
The construction of the bar screens at the ten
diversion structures has caused floatable solid wastes to remain
and be processed through Oglesby’s sewage collection system and
treatment plant and thus,
has eliminated floatable solids from
being discharged from the remaining CSOs.
(Amended Pet.
pars.
biB,
l2E,
Ex. A par.
5).
With the exception of CSO 0-4 at
Oglesby’s sewage treatment plant,
only CSO 0—1,
0-2, and 0-3
remain.
(Amended Pet. par.
11C,
Ex. A par.
9C).
Monitoring at
these CSO5 indicates that the discharge from the CSO5
is clear
and odorless, and that there is no sludge or other deposits
present.
(Amended Pet. par.
11C).
The number of overflow events
from CSO
0-.,
0-2, and 0-3 during July, August, November, and
December 1990, were 15,
12, and 9, respectively.
(Amended Pet,.
par.
llC).
When interpolated on an annual basis, Oglesby
projects the yearly average number of overflow events from CSO 0—
1,
0-2, and 0—3, to be 36,
28, and 21, respectively.
(Amended
Pet. par.
11C).
In addition to the above, capacity for complete treatment of
wastewater at Oglesby’s sewage treatment plant has increased from
.642 MGD to 1.2 MGD (approximately 100 percent).
(Amended Pet.
130—05
6
par.
liD).
The quality of effluent from the plant has also been
improved to below NPDES permit requirement levels
(i.e.
25 mg/b
BOD-5 and 30 mg/i suspended solids).
(Amended Pet.
par.
liD).
Specifically, the monthly average effluent concentrations of BODs
has been reduced from 30+ mg/i to 11 mg/i and the monthly average
effluent concentrations of TSS have been reduced fro~n30+ mg/i to
12 mg/i.
(Amended Pet. par.
11D(l) and
(2)).
REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK
Thee
Board’s
CSO
regulations
are
contained
in
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
306.
They were amended in R81-b7,
51 PCB
383,
March
24,
1983.
Section
306.305
provides as follows:
Section
306.305
Treatment of Overflows and Bypasses
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.
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.
While not necessarily quantified, the substantive provisions
in the Subpart D exception procedures do express,
cumulatively,
the levels of justification required to support an exception to
the rules of general applicability.
For example, the 35 Ill.
Adin.
Code 305.350 states that Board decisions regarding
exceptions from the CSO requirements of 35
Iii.
Adni. Code 306.305
and 306.306 should be based on
“.
.
.water quality effects, actual
130—06
7
and potential stream uses,
and economic considerations including
those of the discharger and those affected by the discharge.”
Moreover,
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 306.362 states that the justification
those petitioners who apply for a CSO exception, but do not file
a joint petition with the Agency,
shall be established pursuant
to the higher levels of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.361(b),
(c), and
(d).
While the deadline has passed for the filing of petitions
pursuant to the procedural mechanisms in Subpart
D, the
justification requirements contained in the rule remain in effect
pursuant, to Section 28.1 of the Act.4
ECONOMIC REASONABLENESS
AND
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
Oglesby asserts that it has achieved substantial compliance
with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.305(a)
and
(b)
as well as the Clean
Water Act and that any remaining existing overflows from its
combined sewage system constitutes minimal impact upon the water
quality of the ravine streams and the Vermillion River.
(Amended
Pet.
par.
13).
It adds that more complete compliance will
gradually be achieved if further street improvements including
separation of the combined sewers occurs.
(Amended Pet. par.
13).’
In addition, Oglesby states that full compliance with 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 306.305(a)
and
(b) would cause substantial
economic hardship.
(Amended Pet. par.
13).
AGENCY RESPONSE
The Agency declined to be a joint petitioner in this case
because inadequate time precluded an on—site visit and a thorough
review of Ogiesby’s petition and supporting documentation prior
to the petition being filed with the Board.
(Agency Resp. par.
8).
However, on May 7,
1991, the Agency did have the opportunity
to inspect Oglesby’s four CSO outfalls.
(Agency Resp. par.
7).
The Agency found that garbage had accumulated below CSO 0-1, but
that the garbage did not appear to be of sanitary sewer origin.
(Agency Resp. par.
7(1)).
The Agency estimated that CSO 0-1 was
discharging at a rate of 0.014 MGD.
(Agency Resp.
par.
7(1)).
The Agency discovered a two-foot pool below CSO 0—2 and found
that CSO 0-2 was discharging at a rate of 0.016 MGD, although the
discharge was clear and there was no evidence of sludge or
definite sewage odor.
(Agency Resp. par.
7(2)).
CSO 0-3 was not
discharging on the date of the inspection and appeared to have
4The Board will evaluate Oglesby’s petition for exception in
light
of
the
CSO regulations
because
it
specifically
retained
jurisdiction in the matter.
The Board would also evaluate the
petition
in
light
of
the CSO
regulations
even
if
it
had
not
retained jurisdiction in this matter.
(See AS 90-1: In The Matter
of:
Petition Of The City of Jacksonville for Adiusted Standard
from 35
Ill. Adm. Code Section 306.305(b)
pp. 4—5,
114 PCB 140—41
(August
9, 1990))
1.30—07
8
been inactive for some time.
(Agency Resp.
par. 7(3)).
Finally,
the Agency observed that CSO 0-4 was discharging at a rate
(including the STP effluent)
of 0-65 MGD.
(Agency Resp.
par.
7(4)).
In addition, the Agency found no sludge,
odor, or garbage
below the outfall.
(Agency Resp.
par.
7(4)).
Based on the above findings, the Agency concludes that
Oglesby’s CSOs are having a minimal discharge impact on the
receiving streams.
Although the Agency recommends that the Board
grant Oglesby’s petition for exception,
it recommends that the
Board im~oseconditions.
Specifically, the Agency requests the
following:
1.
that Ogiesby provide, pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code
305.261(b), an evaluation of stream sediment analyses,
biological surveys, and stream chemical analyses,
or
the justification, pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm.
Code
306.361(d), as to why the information is inapplicable;
2.
that Oglesby conduct additional sampling and monitoring
to collect BOD, suspended solids and volatile solids
concentration data at CSO 0-1,
0-2,
0—3, and 0-4 for an
additional two years after the five lift stations have
been renovated and the one—half mile of storm sewers
have been constructed.5
(The Agency notes that
although the Board granted Oglesby a temporary
exception so that Oglesby would have two years to
gather “post—full operation data”, the activation
points for CSO 0-1,
0-2, and 0-3 have been low, the
activation point for Cso 0-4 has not been determined,
and that the data gathered during abbreviated
monitoring period of July to August 1990 needs to be
supplemented);
3.
that Oglesby provide recent economic or financial
information (e.g., median household income and the
current average sewer bill)
and compare such
information to the economic conditions and financial
information in existence when Oglesby’s original
petition was filed; and
4.
that Oglesby continue its sewer maintenance, street
sweeping, and sewer downspout disconnection programs
and provide the Agency with the details and schedules
for the programs.
(Agency Resp.
pars.
8-li).
5The Agency notes that this condition will require Oglesby to
purchase event—actuated samplers and monitors for each of the four
CSO5.
(Agency Resp.
par.
9).
130—08
9
CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL
LAW
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 306.305 implements Section 13 of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act (“Act”),
ILL.
REV.
STAT.
1989,
ch.
111½, par. 1013,
and the Board’s water quality
standards that were developed pursuant to the federal Clean Water.
Act,
33 U.S.C. 125b~’~q. No corresponding federal regulation
exists.
Therefore, this proposal does not conflict with federal
law.
Moreover, federal regulations exempt discharges from CSO
sewer systems from the federal treatment requirements.
As a
result, tSO treatment facilities are regulated by the states
rather than the federal authorities.
BOARD
DISCUSSION
The Board finds that Oglesby, via its amended petition, has
responded to the concerns that were raised by both the Agency and
the Board at the time of Oglesby’s original petition.
We note,
however, that Oglesby’s past responsiveness has left much to be
desired.
However, at this juncture,
it would create an undue
hardship on Oglesby and serve little,
if any, environmental
purpose., if we were to deny Oglesby’s request for exception.
Oglesby’s wastewater treatment plant and combined sewer upgrades
have already been installed, and the data thus far indicates that
the upgrades are having the desired effect.
A denial of
Oglesby’s request would only result in Oglesby having to pursue
another compliance program
(i.e.
another design approach)
in
order to comply with 35
Ill. Adm. Code 306.305(a) and
(b).
Accordingly, the Board will grant Oglesby’s request for a CSO
exception.
However, the Board shares the Agency’s concerns regarding
the need for supplementation of certain data. Therefore, the
Board will require that Oglesby,
as a single petitioner,
gather
the additional data in 35
Ill. Adm. Code 306.361(b)
unless
Oglesby, pursuant to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 306.361(d),
can provide a
justification for its inapplicability.
Even if this
is an agreed
minimal impact situation, the absence of the Agency as a co—
petitioner triggers these provisions.
(see Condition 8 of the
accompanying Order).
The Board will also require that Oglesby
conduct additional sampling and monitoring to collect BOD,
suspended solids, and volatile solids concentration data at each
of its four CSO points for an additional two years after the five
lift stations have been renovated and the one—half mile of storm
sewers have been constructed.
(see Conditions
6 and 7 of the
accompanying Order).
If the above data does not support the assumptions
underlying the Board’s grant of exception herein, we caution
Oglesby that it bears the responsibility to assure that this
grant of exception is modified if it is necessary to avoid
violation of
it.
In other words,
this grant of exception does
130—09
10
not affect the enforceability of any other condition of the
accompanying Order or any applicable statute or regulation.
(see
Condition 12 of the accompanying Order).
In addition, the Board will require Oglesby to continue its
sewer maintenance, street sweeping, and sewer downspout
disconnection programs, and provide the Agency with the details
and schedules for the programs.
(see Conditions
9 and 10 of the
accompanying Order).
However, the Board will not require Oglesby
to submit updated economic information to the Agency because.
economic considerations are no longer an underlying basis for
evaluation of Oglesby’s cleanup.
In other words, even if
Oglesby’s economic situation has deteriorated since our earlier
grant of temporary exception, the basis for the current grant of
permanent exception is not influenced by economic conditions but
by technical and environmental considerations.
If we misperceive
the Agency’s reasons for requesting, the updated economic
information, the Agency is free to file a motion for
reconsideration.
Finally,
in order to assure that Oglesby will progress with
certain construction plans mentioned in its amended petition, the
.Board will require Oglesby to eliminate ponding at CSO 0-2
(see
paragraphs lOE and 12E of Oglesby’s amended petition),
construct
the one—half mile of additional streets with storm sewers
(see
paragraphs lOE and 12D of Oglesby’s amended petition),
and
renovate the five lift stations referred to in paragraph 1OF of
its amended petition.
(see Conditions 1,
2,
3, and
5 of the
accompanying Order).
The Board will also require Oglesby to
continue to separate combined sewers by installing storm sewers
whenever it constructs any streets in the future.
(see Condition
4 of the accompanying Order).
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
The City of Oglesby is granted a permanent exception from 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 306.305(a) regarding first flush of storm flows
and from 35 Iii. Adm. Code 306.305(b)
subject to the following
conditions:
1.
The City of Oglesby shall eliminate all
pooling below CSO 0-2.
2.
The City of Oglesby shall construct approximately one-
half mile of separate storm sewers along Hazen Avenue
and Durant Street as described in paragraph 1OE of its
amended petition.
3.
The City of Oglesby shall renovate the five
lift
130—10
11
stations as described in paragraph 1OF of its amended
petition.
4.
The City of Oglesby shall continue to separate combined
sewers by installing storm sewers whenever it
constructs any streets in the future.
5.
The City of Oglesby shall commit to definite completion
dates for the projects in conditions
(1),
(2) and
(3)
above.
6.
The City of Oglesby shall submit an inspection,
monitoring and sampling program plan to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency for each of the four
CSO outfalls no later than three months after this
Order.
This plan shall provide for the collection of
BOD, suspended solids, and volatile solids
concentration data for the four CSOs as well as
simultaneous precipitation readings from a continuous
recording rain gauge.
The program shall be implemented
no later than three months after the completion dates
for the projects specified in Conditions
i,
2, and 3
above and shall continue for a period of two years.
This program shall include any modification necessary
at CSO 0-4 to allow monitoring and sampling, prior to
the mixing of the CSO discharges with the sewage
treatment plant effluent.
7.
The City of Oglesby shall submit the results of the
program outlined in Condition
6 above to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency on an annual basis.
The first report shall be due 14 months from the date
of program initiation and: shall include the first 12
months of data.
The second report shall be due one
year after the first report and shall include the
second
12 months of data,
as well as a recommendation
as to whether further CSO improvements are warranted,
and,
if so, what those improvements should be.
8.
The City of Oglesby shall comply with the provisions of
35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.361(b)
by providing the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency with an evaluation of
stream sediment analyses, biological surveys, and
thorough stream chemical analyses unless, pursuant to
subsection
(d), Oglesby includes a justification to the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency for the
inapplicability of the required evaluations.
9.
The City of Oglesby shall continue its sewer
maintenance, street sweeping, and sewer downspout
disconnection programs.
130—11
12
10.
The City of Oglesby shall submit to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency by July 1,
1992,
a CSO
operational and maintenance manual that shall, at a
minimum:
a.
describe the details of and the schedules for
street sweeping and sewer maintenance;
b.
detail the methods used and the schedule for the
ongoing inspection of the sewer downspout
disconnection program;
c.
identify and implement a plan to eliminate
hydraulic bottlenecks within the treatment
facility;
d.
identify the highest level of treatment possible
for all wet weather flows;
e.
reduce to the maximum practical extent storm water
entry into the sewerage system; and
f.
identify and utilize the hydraulic storage
capacity of the sewerage system with eventual
treatment of stored flow during wet weather.
11.
This grant of exception does not preclude the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency from exercising its
authority to require as a permit condition a CSO
monitoring program sufficient to assess compliance with
this exception and any other Board regulations and
other controls,
if needed,
for compliance with water
quality standards.
12.
This grant of exception is not to be construed as
affecting the enforceability of any provisions to this
exception, other Board regulations, the Environmental
Protection Act,
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1989,
ch.
111½ pars.
1001 ~
~g.,
the Clean Water Act,
or any other
applicable federal regulation.
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act,
Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1989,
ch. 11i½ par.
1041, provides for appeal of final
Orders of the Board within 35 days.
The Rules of the Supreme
Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Board Member
3.
Theodore Meyer dissented.
130—12
13
I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby cer,tify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
~
day of
~
,
1992,
by a
vote of
5—/
.
~
Dorothy M. ,q’unn,
Clerk
Illinois P~,ZlutionControl Board
130-13
