ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
March
8,
1984
IN
THE
MATTER OF:
PETITION
OF THE VILLAGE
OF SAUGET
)
R81—12
AND CITY OF EAST ST. LOUIS RE:
SITE-SPECIFIC COMBINED SEWER
OVERFLOW
TREATMENT
Ad2p~tedRule.
Final Order
FINAL
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.
Anderson):
PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
This
matter comes before the Board on the petition
for
site
~pe.cificrulemaking by
the
Village
of
Sauget
(Village),
and
the
City
of
East
St.
Louis
(City),
filed September 30,
1980 as amended
December
15~
1980,
January
29,
1981,
and August
2,
1982.
The
petition
as
amended seeks an exemption for discharges from the
Village~s
proposed
regional
treatment plant from the requirements
of
35
III.
Mm. Code 306.302,
306.305
and 306.306 relating
to
treatment
of
combined
sewer
overflow
(CSO)
formerly
Rules
602
(a,
C,
d)
of
Chapter
3:
Water
Pollution,
and from the effluent
standards
for
BOD and TSS of Section 304.120(b)
formerly
Rule
404(b).
One
merit
hearing
was held in this matter on June 23,
1981.
An economic hearing was held June 2,
1982, at which the
Department
of
Energy and Natural Resources
(DENR) presented
testimony
of
Linda Huff concerning the ~Economic Impact Analysis
of
Combined Sewer Overflow Regulations On East St.
Louis, R81-12”~
Doc. No.
82/08
(Ex.
14),
The Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(Agency) participated
in each hearing, and by way of public
comment
filed
July
15,
1982
(PC
3)
recommended
that
the
Board
grant
site—specific
relief
from
the CSO treatment requirements
but deny relief from the effluent standards as unnecessary.
The
Board adopted a
First
Notice Order
in the matter on
September
23,
1983.
On
February 23,
1984,
the Joint Committee
on
Administrative Rules determined that it had no objection to
the
proposed
rule,
provided certain editorial changes were made.
*The
Board appreciates the ef!orts
of
administrative
assistants Lee Cunningham,
who acted as Hearing Officer,
and
Kathleen Crowley, who provided assistance
in
drafting
this
rule
and
Opinion.
2
A brief overview of this action is given below,
followed
by a more detailed presentation of the issues raised in the
proceeding.
Petitioners are units of local government situated in
St. Clair County,
Illinois, on the east bank of the Mississippi
River.
All wastewater within the East St. Louis
sewer system is
currently transported to the East St. Louis wastewater treatment
plant.
During periods of increased flow due to rainfall, waste—
water is discharged directly to the Mississippi River.
In September,
1977, the Village of Sauget was designated as
lead agency for the design, construction and operation of a
Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility to provide primary and
secondary treatment of the wastewater from the Cities of East
St. Louis and Centreville, and the Villages of Sauget,
Cahokia,
Brooklyn, Allorton and National City (see Ex.
40).
Part of Sauget’s responsibilities under the Step
I Facilities
Plan were to conduct a first flush analysis of the East St. Louis
combined sewer system.
According to Agency determinations any
rainfall—related flows in a combined sewer system with levels of
contaminants
in excess of those concentrations expected on an
average daily basis are deemed to be first flush flow.
These
flows normally have high concentrations of pollutants,
(BOD,,
suspended solids, metals, etc.) which have accumulated in tfle
system at times of dry weather,
When resuspended from increased
flow to the sewer system, the first
flush is required under
Section 306~305(a)to receive the same degree of treatment as
dry weather flow,
Compliance with Section 306.305(b)
requires
a minimum of primary treatment for not less than ten times the
average dry weather flow,
These
flows are alleged to consist of
approximately 20.9 million gallons, and 87 million gallons,
respectively (see
Ex.
14,
“East
St. Louis’ First Flush Analysis
for the American Bottoms Regional Treatment Wastewater Facility”
conducted by Russell and Axon,
Inc.,
July, 1980).
The Russell study concluded that the most cost—effective
means of treating first flush flows would be to construct a 21
million gallon equalization basin to store the first flush and
to provide subsequent transportation to the treatment facility,
Total capital cost is estimated at $9.2 million and annual
operating costs at $249,000.
The study further determined that primary treatment and
disinfection of “10 times” average dry weather flow would require
a facility with the capability of treating
87 million gallons.
The most cost—effective approach was found to be the construction
of a settling basin with a 21.8 million gallon capacity to provide
one hour detention time for peak flow rates.
Total capital cost
is estimated at $6.6 million and annual operating costs at
$312,000.
57-66
3
It is alleged that compliance with the combined sewer
overflow treatment regulations is unreasonable in light of the
minimal environmental damage expected.
Due to the large dilution
capacity of the Mississippi River,
even at low river flow the
concentration of BOD,
is estimated to increase to
1.0.0 mg/i
from 9.9 mg/i while thtal
suspended solids
(TSS) should actually
decrease from 359.0 mg/l to 358.7 mg/I.
Petitioners, therefore,
allege that for all practical purposes no detectable environmental
impact would result.
As an alternative to full CSO compliance, petitioners seek
permission to continue to discharge as “overflows” the first
flush of storm flows which would cause the treatment plant to
operate beyond capacity.
Such overflows would be passed through
a bar screen
facility.
The further Step
2 and
3 funding of the
7½xnerican Bottoms
facility is dependent on resolution of the question of what level
of CsO capture and treatment is to be required (see Ex.
7 and 10).*
THE TREATMENT PLANT
Plant Loadings a~dOperations
The present system at East St.
Louis
is a primary treatment
plant, which has had serious malfunctions since 1980.
The
facilities consist of bar screens and primary clarifiers with
no disinfection as of April,
1982.
There are no facilities for
treatment of combined sewer overflows.
The average wastewater flow of 18.5 MGD from East St. Louis
has influent BOD~values of 225 mg/l and suspended solids of
658
mg/i
accordilig
to the 1979 sampling by Russell and Axon.
In March through December of 1980 the average effluent BOD
concentration was 180 mg/i and suspended solids concentrat~onwas
reported as 260 mg/i.
(However, during this six month period only
a portion of the wastewater flow was treated, and the remainder
bypassed the plant due to equipment breakdowns.
Although Russell
and Axon utilized an average flow of 18.5 MCD, the “treated” flow
*The Village’s own discharges were the subject of variances
granted in PCB 79—88, June 22,
1979 and PCB 77—136,
June 22,
1978
(which
records
were herein incorporated as Ex.
2).
The proposed
American Bottoms facility has been the subject of petitions by
the Village and City.
In PCB 80—176,
April
16,
1981, the variance
petition was dismissed asinsufficient for lack of information
concerning environmental impact in three specified areas, and
questions concerning economic hardship data evaluation.
A
petition for variance pending the outcome of this site—specific
rulemaking, docketed at PCB 81—147, has been pending since
September
24,
1981.
As petitioners have not proceeded to the
hearing they requested in that matter, no action has been taken
on the petition.
57-67
4
from March through December of 1980 was 10.4 MCD.)
In 1981 there
were serious equipment malfunctions which resulted in complete
bypass of the primary plant for February, March, June, and the
remainder of 1981.
The East St. Louis pollutant loading to the river was
calculated based on primary treatment of the entire daily flow,
60
of the daily flow, and complete bypass.
The daily and annual
loadings for these three treatment conditions are estimated as
the following:
Daily Loading,
lbs/day
BOD5
SS
Annual Loading,
million lbs/year
SOD5
SS
10.1
14.6
11.8
23.6
14.3
37.0
Complete Flow Receiving
27,800
40,100
Primary Treatment
60
Flow Receiving
32,400
64,700
Primary Treatment
Complete Bypass
39,300 101,500
The Sauget treatment facility consists of primary treatment
and a physical/chemical treatment process for industrial waste.
The average flow at this plant is 9.7 MGD, and the effluent
quality was estimated by Russell and Axon as a BOD5 concentration
of 210 mg/i with suspended solids of 35 mg/i.
The third wastewater source which will
be incorporated into
the regional plant is the Metropolitan East Sanitary District’s
Cahokia primary treatment facility.
The Cahokia flow is approxi-
mately 2.9 MCD with an average effluent quality of 99 mg/i SOD5
and 99 mg/i of suspended solids,
Once completed,
the American Bottoms Regional ~‘Yastewater
Treatment Facility will contain secondary treatment facilities.
Only screens will be utilized at the Cahokia and East St. Louis
pump stations, and the effluents will be pumped to Sauget where
they will receive primary treatment, be combined with Sauget’s
wastewater, and then treated with an air activated sludge/powdered
activated carbon process.
The
resulting
effluent quality is
anticipated to be in compliance with the applicable standards of
20 mg/i for BOD5 and 25 mg/i for suspended solids.
Table 2—1 of the EcIS
(Ex.
14,
0.
12), reproduced below,
summarizes existing discharges to the Mississippi River and
expected performance of the American Bottoms facility:
57-68
5
Facility
Average
Wastewater
SOD
Effluent
Loading, lb/day
TSS Effluent
Loading, lb/day
Volume, MCD
East St.
Louis
18.5
27,800a
40,1~)Øa
MESD—Cahokia
2.9
2,400b
2400b
sauget
9,7
~7000C
2,800C
Total
31.1
47,200
45,300
American Bottoms
Regional Plant
27
4,500
5,600
Reduction in
Loading
to River
90
80
Note:
a)
Calculated using BOD
concentrations of 180 mg/i
and TSS of 260 mg/l ~rom DMR data.
b)
Loading with 99 mg/i effluent level of BOD5 and
SS and 2.9 MCD flow.
c)
Loading based on flow of 9.7 MCD and BOD5 of
210 mg/i and SS of 35 mg/i in effluent.
The “Industrial. Sampling Program” summarized
in February,
1980 by Russell and Axon
(Ex. 12) estimates the total average
daily industrial
flow to the facility to be about 16 MCD, or 59
of the average daily design flow.
These
flows result primarily
from major facilities located in East
St. Louis.
Based on
data from Russell and Axon as well as the IEPA,
Ms.
Huff concluded
that metals such as copper, nickel, lead and chromium were
present at concentration below applicablcth effluent limits.
The
parameters which might violate effluent standards were thought to
be fluoride and total
iron, depending upon various characteristics
of the CSO.
New Design and CSO Treatment Alternatives
The Russell and Axon determination of the level of CSO
capture and treatment required to achieve compliance was primarily
based upon two storm events, one occurring February 22,
1982 with
a peak intensity of 0.35 inches/hour, and the other October 22,
1979 with a peak intensity of 0.34 inches/hour.
First flush
volume was calculated to be 20.9 million gallons.
Peak flow rate
was calculated at 274,000 gallons per minute,
Of four first
flush compliance alternatives studied, the
cheapest would involve installation of larger influent pumps to
handle the peak rate, and installing a 21 million gallon concrete
lined earthen basin with 840 hp.
(sic)
surface area.
The total
57-69
6
capital cost for first flush capture and retention would be
$12,120,000, with an operating and maintenance
(o and m) cost of
$249,000 per
year.
Treatment of first flush flows in the plant
at a design average rate of 1 mgd was calculated to result in a
$2.2 million capital cost in the treatment plant attributable
to first flush treatment.
Lesser degrees of CSO capture and treatment were studied.
The alternatives, their costs, and pollutant removal capabilities
were well summarized by Tables
3-i.
and 3—4 in the ECIS:
57-70
—7.-
Table 3-1.
Alternatives for Controlling Cc~1nod
Sewer
Overflows
Alternative Descri
tion
p
Estbnated Capital
Cost,
S
Estimated
O&P~
Cost,
S/Yr
Total
Co
Annualized
st~
5/Yr
I.
First
flush
-
Store
and
treat
and
20,870.000
561,000
3,190~000
provide
10
x
~MF
II.
First
flush
-
Store
and
treat
14,3211,000
249,000
2,050,000
III.
Treat
as
much of coatined
sewage
4,670,000
266,000
854,000
in New Treatment
Plant
as
possible.
Bar screen and chlorination on
overflow.
IV.
Treat
as ni~h
of
coetined
sewage
2,970,000
8,000
382,000
in
New
Treatment
Plant
as
possible.
Bar
screen only on overflow.
aBased on a 20 year life and an Interest rate of 11,
January
1980 dollars.
Table 3-4.
Pollutants Remuved and Discharged from
the
Four Stor~ter
Management
Alternatives,
Taking
into
Account
Loss
of
Three
Industrial Dischargers in
E. St. Louisa
Alternative Description
Annual
Pollutants
Rema,ed,
lbs
Annu*l
Disc
Pollutants
barged,
lbs
BODE
TSS
DOD~
TSS
Existing
0
0
811,000
2,990,000
Ia
-
First
flush
-
store
&
treat
and
provide lOx
DWF
Ha
-
First flush
-
store
& treat
614,000
2,500,000
521,000
2,310,000
197,000
290,000
490,000
660,000
lila
-
Treat as much of contined
sewage
in new treatment plant as
possible,
bar
screen and
chlorinate
overflows
113,000
360,000
698,000
2,292,000
IVa
-
Treat as much o
in new
treatmen
possible.
Bar
overflow
f contined
sewage
t plant as
screen only on
I
113,000
360,000
698,000
2,292,000
Notes:
a) Hunter-Packing, Certainteed, and coaling water discharg. from Pfizer eliminated.
57-71
8
The
fourth,
“bar screen only” alternative is that which
the
petitioner’s wish to incorporate into the American Bottoms facility
design, and is the subject of this petition for site—specific rule,
In detail, the new bar screen facility would be designed and
constructed in conjunction with the new East St. Louis Pump
Station and force main, and would become part of the total
regional treatment system.
The bar screen facility would be
located on the existing 12.5’ x 12.5’
box sewer.
All dry weather flows plus stormwater flows from the City’s
system up to a maximum of
30
MGI)
(expected pumping capacity)
would
be pumped by the new East St.
Louis
Pump Station through a
force main to the American Bottoms Regional Facility.
The present average dry weather flow used to compute the
first flush from the City is approximately 18.5 MGD.
The future
average dry weather flow is projected as
12 MCD after completion
of the Sewer System Evaluation Study
(SSES) and subsequent sewer
rehabilitation for the City.
Thus, the Regional Treatment Plant
would be designed to handle these flows plus a maximum storinwater
flow up to 18 MGD after rehabilitation.
Flows in excess of 30 MGD would be bypassed to the new bar
screen facility for the removal of floating debris and then
discharged to the East St. Louis Pump Station.
Material removed
from the bypassed wastewater would be disposed of with the
screenings from the new East St. Louis Pump Station.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Mississippi River Stream Use and Water
Qual~y
The present discharges to th Mississippi River occur at
River Mile 178.7 below the confluence of the Illinois River and
Mississippi River, as well as below the confluence of the Illinois
Missouri River and Mississippi River.
The downstream, shoreline
uses of the River on the Illinois side are limited by the
extensive levee system.
Residential development does not occur
on the river side of the levee and road access
is limited,
No
state or local recreational sites or boating facilities exist
on the Illinois side between river miles 179 and 149, although
several boating clubs are located on the Missouri side.
Public
water supply intakes are located at Chester, which is approxi-
mately river mile 110, and at the Menard Prison,
located near
chester
(Ex.
14,
p.
17, and R.
24).
Water quality data are available continuously since 1975
from the Alton station (river mile 200) and since 1973 from
Thebes station (river mile 35).
Data is available between 1968
and 1976 from the East St. Louis water intake (river mile 180)
57-72
9
and station J82 on the St.
Louis side of the river
(a few
miles away from rIver mile 180) between 1968 and 1977 from the
Chester water intake
(river mile 110).
This data,
in summary,
indicates that the parameters consistently exceeding water
quality standards are fecal coliform and iron.
Dissolved oxygen
(DO) data is only available from the East St.
Louis and Chester
stations.
Five of thirty—five DO samples taken between 1972 and
1974 at the Chester station
(70 miles downstream from East.
St.
Louis) were below the 5.0 mg/i standard, but samples have
remained above the standard since 1975.
i~nticipatedEffects of Requested Rule Change
In summary,
the petitioners, Mrs.
Huff, and the Agency
agree that the environmental effects of granting petitioners the
relief requested will not be great.
Three specific pollutant
categories were specifically addressed:
deoxygenating material,
bacteria, and heavy metals.
The DO issue was the focus of much of the presentation both
by James Suddarth,
a project manager for Russell and Axon, and
by Mrs.
Huff,
In her analysis of the DO situtation,
Mrs. Huff
proceeded from several assumptions.
The cited existing DO violation rate was assumed to be 7
based on the afore—cited 1972 to 1977 data.
(The 1975,
1976,
and 1977 samples did not indicate any DO violation.)
Any water
quality improvements since 1977 will not have been incorporated
in a lower violation rate.
The expected effect of a reduction in East St. Louis’
wastewater loading is based solely on point sources with no
consideration of the contribution of non—point sources, as well
as the contribution of the Missouri River.
Eight neighboring
communities, six of which have CSO problems, were listed as
being in the East St.
Louis area (Ex.
15, Attach.
2).
Thus, any
reduction in dissolved oxygen violations attributable to East
St. Louis CSO controls would be overstated.
Finally, wet weather contributions of neighboring cOmmunities
were assumed to be of the same relative proportion as dry weather
discharges.
The deoxygenating wastes attributable to East.
St. Louis
are estimated to be 6.1 million lbs./yr.
for discharges from
the treatment plant, and 0,81 million lbs./yr.
for discharges
resulting from CSO.
Based on data concerning loadings from
other point sources, Mrs. Huff calculates that under existing
conditions, the East.
St.
Louis discharge contributes to DO water
quality violations 1.1 days per year.
Completion of the American
Bottoms plant should decrease that rate to 0.9 days per year,
and first flush treatment ~o a rate of 0.33 days per year.
57-73
10
Mr. Suddarth spoke to the effect of the discharge on the
“mixing zone”.
Based on a mixing zone of 25
of the mean daily
flow of the Mississippi River
(which equals 32,860 mgd), the
incremental increase in deoxygenating wastes in
the
mixing zone
would be 0.01 mg/l for BOD and 0.7 mg/i for TSS.
As to heavy metals, iron and fluorides were the pollutants
which could potentially be problems.
Iron concentrations in
East St.
Louis’ effluent range from 18 to 230 mg/i, which is
that expected to be present in the CSO discharge.
At the 1400
to
1 dilution ratio available in a” mixing zone”* of 25
of the
River’s flow, iron concentrations would be expected to be
increased less than 0.16 mg/i.
The present total iron standard of 1.0 mg/i
is frequently
violated, as the Mississippi already averages 2.0 mg/i in iron.
This is in part due to high background concentrations due to
geologic conditions and non—point sources.
Mrs. Huff notes that
various studies have shown that total iron is not a toxic metal
until concentrations of
32 mg/i to 10,000 mg/i are reached,
depending upon pH and other factors.
No analyses have been made of River water for fluoride
concentrations.
Fluoride concentrations of 33 mg/i, and thus
also CSO discharges, are calculated for treatment plant effluent,
but these levels may not be present if precipitation occurs prior
to discharge.
Fecal coliform levels in the Mississippi River have been
consistently higher than the water quality standard formerly
contained in Section 302.209 (repealed in R77—12, Docket D,
August 18, 1982, of which action appeal
is pending).
The
violation rate may be largely attributable to a combination of
non-point sources arid discharges by the City of St. Louis of
250 mgd of primary, unchiorinated effluents.
It is therefore
believed that any CSO discharges by East St. Louis will not
measurably alter fecal coliform counts.
(Also see previous
discussion of downstream water uses.)
ADDITIONAL ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
In addition to the arguments made about costs of CSO
compliance in relation to environmental benefits, the argument
has been made that the petitioners’ financial situation is
“uniquely” poor, with East St.
Louis’ condition being depressed
far beyond that of most of the communities in the staten.
*
The Board notes that what is called a “mixing zone” is actually
a “zone of passage” for fish, etc.
The Board defines the term
mixing zone as a circle with a 600 ft.
radius.
57-74
11
To finance the “local share” of the American Bottoms plant,
the Village of Sauget recently sold $20 million of revenue bonds
at 13.5
interest over 20 years.
East St.
Louis will be expected
to pay an allocated share of the capital investment of the plant,
bond interest, and operating and maintenance costs,
In addition,
since the CSO points are located in East St.
Louis, it would be
required to bear the entire costs of CSO treatment.
Capital costs for CSO treatment, as aforementioned, would be
$21 million to achieve
full compliance, or $14 million to treat
the “first flush”.
Assuming availability of $75
federal funding,
its “local share” would thus be, respectively $5.25 million or
$3.5 million.
This $3—5 million capital cost would be in addition
to the following annual costs:
Interest charges on existing debt
$
87,000
Annual costs of regional plant
$3,000,000
—
$4,200,000
Annual costs of CSO treatment
$1,300~000
TOTAL
$4,400,000
—
$5,600,000
The cost of CSO control pius regionalization will increase
4½
to 6 times the cost of sewage treatment for this city.
The
1981 budget goal of $7.5 million represents the cost of general
city services.
Future sewage treatment costs represent 59
to
75
of the budget if CSO control is included, and 41
to 57
without CSO control.
The increase in sewer rates is estimated
between a threefold and fivefold increase.
The City asserts that compliance with the CSO rules may be
virtually impossible to achieve without severe hardship to an
already badly crippled City economy.
Recent financial statements submitted by the City
(Ex.
9
and 17) generally indicate the City’s poor financial condition,
The economic condition of East St. Louis has been one of deter—
iorating finances and increasing unemployment since 1970.
The
population of East St. Louis has decreased approximately 20
to 55,000 since 1970 because of industrial plant closings and
loss of business establishments.
The unemployment rate in 1981
was between 20 and 25
for the City’s population.
The City tax
rate, which is the highest in the state, has doubled in the last
ten years to offset the decline in property values.
If required to comply with CSO treatment requirements, the
City could theoretically look to one of two sources to generate
necessary revenue:
higher sewerage rates, or bond issuance.
Imposition of higher sewerage rates would seem infeasible,
particularly given already existing deficits in the municipal
operating budget.
The City’s capacity to issue bonds
is highly doubtful,
Recently,
the City did sell
$2 million of general obligation
57-76
12
bonds,
however the extraordinary guarantee of obligation of
specific city revenue sources was necessary to support the bond
issue.
Use of various state pollution bond funds is not an
option, because of state funding freezes and federal construction
grant program limitations.
AGENCY CONCERNS
The Agency believes that the City has adequately demonstrated
the uniqueness of its financial plight.
It also believes that
the petitioner’s presentation, as supplemented by the data con-
tained in the Huff EcIS,
sufficiently indicate lack of significant
environmental harm from discharge of the parameters discussed.
However, the Agency notes that petitioners have not provided
any testimony on whether bottom sludge deposits were or could in
the future be occurring, and whether or not it would be an
environmental problem.
Mr.
Toby Frevert testified for the Agency
and stated that conditions in the Mississippi River immediately
below the East St.
Louis overflow probably would not be conducive
to deposition of solid deposits flushed from East St.
Louis’
sewers during overflow periods
(EcIS Hearing
R.
64).
This
statement was based on information related to a nearby water
treatment facility with discharge rates and waste characteristics
notably different from that expected from the East St. Louis
combined sewer system.
Although solids particles discharged in
the overflow may indeed disperse rather than redeposit on the
river bottom, the Agency believes that certainty about this
matter is an important element of the environmental considerations
of this proceeding,
It urges that the question should be
specifically addressed with actual sediment analysis to verify
the presence or absence of unnatural sludge or bottom deposits.
The Agency would
like to request that the Board condition
the grant of this regulatory relief on a brief testing program to
determine the extent of the sludge deposition.
It suggests that
the Board has precedent for requiring testing as part of a regu-
lation in Rule 203(i)(5) which requires that certain facilities
with thermal discharges show after a certain amount of time that
no significant ecological damage can be reasonably expected.
The
Agency does not ask that this broad showing be required but only
that petitioner show that sludge deposits will not accumulate
beneath the overflow points.
If this testing shows that such
deposits are occurring, the Agency believes the matter should be
reopened.
Finally, the Agency suggests that the relief requested
from Section 304,120(a) relating to BOD and TSS be denied as
unnecessary,
since that Section by its terms excepts discharges
governed by Section 306,305
(as renumbered from Section
306.103(c).
57-76
13
THE RESOLUTION
The Board finds that petitioners have adequately proven need
for the site—specific relief requested,
In so finding, the Board
does not place primary weight on the admittedly extreme nature of
the financial
“hardship” asserted by the City, as this type of
“arbitrary or unreasonable hardship” allegation is a consideration
more appropriate to a variance proceeding than a site-specific
rulemaking.
Rather, the Board is persuaded that, based on the
American Bottoms plant design capacity and its capacity to accept
and treat most of the first flush
flows, the City’s suggested
alternative to the treatment requirements of Section 306.305 will
result in discharges which will contribute little,
if at all, to
water quality violations in the Mississippi
River.
The Board notes that,
in granting this relief, it has granted
CSO relief on a “first come,
first
served basis”, rather than in
the integrated manner established in the CSO Exception Procedure
of Sections 306.350—306.374.
This proceeding was instituted long
prior to the Board’s creation of that procedure.
With all due
benefit of hindsight, the Board believes that some of the data
collection and presentation difficulties observed in this
proceeding would have been obviated had it been commenced using
the exception procedure mechanism,
The Board shares the
Agency’s
concern
about
sludge
deposits,
and agrees that testing should be done.
Were this a variance,
the Board would include a condition of the sort recommended by
the Agency.
However,
the Board prefers to include a prohibition
of sludge deposits
in the rule itself,
A testing program would
then appropriately be included the City’s NPDES permit as a
monitoring condition,
Finally, the Board is also making changes in the draft
rule
submitted by petitioners May
2,
1982, adding agreed to conditions,
deleting the reference to Section 304,120(a),
updating rule references,
and inserting the rule in a more appropriate location.
ORDER
The Board hereby adopts the following rule, which
shall
be
filed with the Secretary of State:
TITLE 35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE C:
WATER POLLUTION
CHAPTER
I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PART
306
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
57-77
—14—
SUBPART
F:
SITE SPECIFIC RULES AND EXCEPTIONS
Section 306.501
East St. Louis—Sauget Site—Specific Discharges
a)
The discharge from the sewer system
of
the City of
East St.
Louis, as described below, shall not be
subject to the treatment requirements and timetables
of Sections 306.305(b), and 306.306.
The discharge
is located in Lots 305 and/or 306 of Sixth Subdivision
of Cahokia Commons and also in the Northwest Quarter
Section 23, Township Two North,
Range Ten West, of
the Third Principal Meridian, and can be defined as
being at Mississippi River Mile Number 178.7 and
further can be defined as being located at North 38°,
36 minutes,
40 seconds latitude and west 90°,10
minutes,
40 seconds longitude.
b)
The first flush of storm
flows shall meet the applicable
effluent standards of 35 Ill.
Adrn, Code Part 304,
except
when to attempt to treat such flows would cause the
treatment plant to operate beyond design capacity.
c)
In accordance with 35
Ill. Mm,
Code
302,203, overflows
in excess of plant treatment capacity shall be passed
through a 1/2 inch bar screen prior to discharge.
d)
Overflows shall not cause accumulation of unnatural
sludge deposits in the receiving stream,
IT IS SO ORDERED,
I, Christan L.
Moffett,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board, hereby
certify that the above Opinion and Order
was adopted on
the
~
day of
~,
1984 by
illinois Pollut:
Board
57-78
