ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April

19,

1984

IN

THE MATTER OF:

)

THE

PETITION OF THE

)

GALESBURG SANITARY DISTRICT

)

R80-16

TO AMEND REGULATIONS.

)

Adopted Rule.

Final Order.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J.D. Dumelle):

On August 28,

1980,

the Galesburg Sanitary District filed a

petition for site—specific regulatory relief which was accepted

by the Board and authorized

for hearing and publication on

September

4,

1980.

Four merit hearings were held on December

9

and

10, 1980;

and June 8 and 9,

1981.

On October

7,

1982,

the

Department of Energy and Natural Resources transmitted to the

Board copies of its economic study entitled The Economic

Impact of Proposed Regulation R80-16 Filed h~theGalesburg

Sanitary District to Amend Chapter

3, Water Pollution Regulations.

An economic impact hearing was held to consider that study on

January 14,

1983.

Final comments were received by the Board on

March

11,

1983.

The Board adopted a Proposed Rule/First Notice Order in this

matter on June

2,

1983

(52 PCB 299) and first notice was published

in Illinois Register #26, vol.

7

on June

24,

1983.

Comments

were filed by the Galesburg Sanitary District

(GSD) on

September

15 and November 15,

1983,

and by the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency on November

1,

1983.

Based

upon those comments,

some changes were made to the proposed

rule which appeared

in the Board’s Proposed Rule/Second Notice

Opinion and Order

of

November 18,

1983.

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

filed

a

motion

for

reconsideration

of

the

Second

Notice Order on

December

29,

1983 which was granted on February

9,

1984.

The

Board

did not change its Second Notice Order, but

did

clarify

the

intent

of

the

rule.

The

Board

appreciates

the

efforts

of

Lee

R.

Cunningham,

who

acted

as

hearing

office

in

these

proceedings,

and

Bill

S.

Forcade,

for

his

assistance

in

drafting

this

Opinion

and

Order.

57-453

---

The second notice period commenced on March 16,

1983, and

the proposed rule was reviewed by the Joint Committee on

Administrative Rules

(JCAR).

The second notice period ended on

April

10, 1984 when JCAR determined that no objection would be

issued concerning the rulemaking,

so long as the Board agreed to

correct a typographical error.

FACILITY

The Galesburg Sanitary District owns and operates a sewer

system and sewage treatment plant

in Knox County that services

primarily the City of Galesburg

(R..133).

Galesburg was

originally constructed as a combined sewer community;

however,

over 90

of the City is presently served by storm sewers as a

result of sewer separation projects that started in

1967.

The

original

44 overflow points have remained in the system

(R.

236).

The wastewater treatment facilities provide secondary

treatment by a trickling filter process.

Dry weather flows

receive two stage trickling filter treatment:

first through the

1930 plant, then recirculation to the plant completed in 1969.

Flows exceeding dry weather flow are given single stage treatment

in the 1969 plant.

There has been no reported bypassing of the

plant since 1970,

although combined sewer overflow does occur.

Treatment plant effluent, combined sewer overflows, and any

hy~passingdischarge into Cedar Creek (R,160—165),

Cedar Creek begins as a farm tile northeast of Galesburg and

flows through Galesburg from Northeast to Southwest.

Cedar Creek

becomes a paved channel inside the City at the Santa Fe

Burlington Northern Viaduct,

and

continues through the center of

the city generally

parallel

to the main line of the Santa Fe.

Cedar Creek emerges from southwest Galesburg,

flows past the

sewage treatment plant, and continues in a westerly direction

through predominantly agricultural land,

Ultimately, Cedar Creek

flows into Henderson Creek which flows into the Mississippi River

R~132~140)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Discharges from the Galeshurg Sanitary District treatment

plant and combined sewer overflows are subject to Board rules and

regulations which establish water quality standards applicable to

Cedar Creek.

To comply with these rules and regulations the

District embarked on a program to plan, design and engineer, and

construct improvements to the sewage collection and treatment

facilities,

During the pendency of that program, the District

has sought variances from certain effluent and water quality

standards in the following proceedings:

PCB 73—86,

74—93,

75~i48,

76-154,

76-~296, 77~~i92,and 82—21.

The present variance

57-454

---

(PCB 77~192)grants the District relief,

until June

1,

1982,

from

1977 rules governing ammonia nitrogen discharges,

deoxygenating

wastes discharges,

and combined sewers and treatment

plant

bypasses.

The District has a variance request pending, PCB 82-~21,

seeking similar relief for the future if this site~specific

regulatory request is denied,

In the present proceeding

the District has sought the

following changes in Board Rules and Regulations:

1.

That the water use designation for Cedar Creek he

changed from general use to general use with certain limitations

(Section 302,202),

2.

That the current dissolved oxygen standard for Cedar

Creek be deleted if treatment plant effluent meets certain

standards.

The present dissolved

oxygen standard

requires not

less than 6,0 mg/I during at least

16 hours of any 24

hour

period, and not less than 5,0 mg/i at any time (Section 302,206).

3.

That the treatment plant be required to meet final

effluent standards of 20 mg/I of BaD5 and 25 mg/i of TSS.

The

current standard is 10 mg/I BOD5,

12 mg/i of TSS

(Section

304,120(b)).

4.

That water quality standards for Cedar Creek regarding

ammonia nitrogen and un—ionized ammonia be modified to place a

maximum of

15 mg!l of ammonia nitrogen and 0,10 mg/i of

un—ionized ammonia.

Current standards require, below 15 mg/i

ammonia nitrogen,

a maximum un—ionized ammonia of 0.04 mg/i

(Section 302,212),

5.

That the current requirement that discharges not

increase ambient water temperature more than 5°F(2.8°C)be

deleted (Section 302,211(d)),

6.

That the combined sewer overflow requirement that all

of the first flush meet applicable effluent standards be deleted

(Section 206,305(a)),

The Agency recommended that the site specific rules not he

adopted.

PRESENT PROCEEDINGS

During these proceedings individuals appearing in favor of

the Galesburg Sanitary District~sproposal provided testimony and

exhibits that:

57-455

---

—4—

1)

described

the

present

and

potential

uses

of

Cedar

Creek

and surrounding

areas,

2)

described the chemical and biological nature of Cedar

Creek and the impacts caused by sewage discharges as well

as the

urban

and agricultural

environment,

and

3)

described the

Galesburg

sewage system and

plant,

their

operation, the proposed construction program, and its cost.

Individuals appearing in opposition to the proposal provided

testimony and exhibits concerning the nature of Cedar Creek and

impact from District discharges,

as well as disputing testimony

in favor of the proposal.

A local farmer testified that he had lost several calves

that drank from Cedar Creek,

and

presented laboratory results

showing nitrate/nitrite levels

in Cedar Creek,

He claimed the

District’s discharge partly caused

the loss of calves

and high

nitrate/nitrite

levels

but

did

not

claim

to support or

oppose the

proposed amendments

(R.

280-284,

Ex.

32),

In its final brief the

District

argues

that,

at

present,

the

total District discharges do not

impair

present

or

potential

uses

of Cedar Creek, that the proposed

amendments

would simply

maintain

existing

conditions,

that

the anticipated construction

program costs

($40

million)

would

far outweigh benefits, and that

the proposal

is reasonable

and

appropriate.

In its

final

comments the Agency

disputes

the District’s claims,

arguing

that

the level of control

reqpired by Board regulations is technically

feasible and economically reasonable,

and that the District has

failed

to

demonstrate the uniqueness

in circumstances of its

plant

or Cedar Creek

(compared

to any other district or creek)

which is

necessary

for site-specific

relief.

DISCUSSION

The District~sproposal can be broken into three separate

elements:

1.

relief from deoxygenating

wastes

effluent

standards,

water

quality

dissolved oxygen and

ammonia

standards,

and water

use

designation changes,

2.

relief from

combined

sewer overflow regulations,

and

3.

relief from

instream

temperat~reincrease

regulations.

57-456

---

The District~sargument is conceptually simple:

to achieve

the applicable standards the District must proceed with a

construction program that is now estimated to cost nearly $40

million,

studies indicate

the

impact

of

the

District~s

discharges

on Cedar

Creek

does

not

significantly

impair

any

present or

potential

use

of

the Creek, water quality improvements from the

construction

program

would

be

minimal

compared

to

the

cost,

and,

therefore,

site—specific

relief should he granted.

EFFLUENT CONSIDERATIONS

Effluent

from

the

District~s

discharge is subject

to

the

deoxygenating wastes

standards of

Section

304,120.

Since the

dilution

ratio of

the

District~s

discharge

to

Cedar Creek is less

than

five to one

(R.134),

304,120(c)

requires

that the effluent

not exceed 10 mg/i of

BOD5

or

12

mg/i

of TSS except

in certain

situations

not

applicable

here,

The

District

requests

discharge

limitations of 20 mg/I BOD~.and 25 mg/I of TSS as required by

Section 304,120(b) which w~uIdapply to the District~sdischarge

but for the

low

flow characteristics

of

Cedar Creek,

In

Group

Exhibit

17 the District introduced results of

effluent analyses from January of 1966 through October of 1980.

An examination of the last 36 months of that data shows the

discharge failed to meet the 10 mg/I of BOD

standard for 26

months and failed to meet the

12 mg/I of TS~standard for 18

months,

Results from 1966 to 1976 show even higher BOD~/TSS

values,

Clearly the District has had and still

has a problem

with a 10/12 standard,

Closer examination of the discharge data

shows a seasonal pattern.

During the warmer months

(July,

August,

September) BOD5/TSS values are lowest and usually comply

with a 10/12 standard.

During the colder months

(January,

February,

March) BOD5/TSS values are highest and seldom comply.

To resolve these problems the District, beginning in 1972,

contracted with Clark,

Dietz

& Associates for a series of reports

and studies identifying the nature of the problem and making

recommendations

to satisfy existing regulatory requirements

(R,201),

The controlling requirements were effluent

characteristics of

4 mg/I BOD

,

5 mg/I TSS, and 400 fecal

coliform per 100 ml,

The str~amstandards for Cedar Creek

included a maximum 1,5 mg/l ammonia nitrogen standard (R,220)*,

The report recommended several specific changes and additions to

the existing system (R~226—230,

Ex,

25,

31,

33),

The cost of constructing these improvements, in 1980

dollars, is

estimated

at $19,858,000 by Clark—Deitz

(Ex.

31).

Annual operation and maintenance

(0

& M) for the improved

facility is likewise estimated at $1,107,900 per year.

Mr,

James

*

The requirements also may nave included a maximum effluent

concentration of 0.1 mg/I Phosphorus

(R,210)

57-457

---

—6—

Browning, the District~sSuperintendent,

testified that plant

improvements would substant~alyraise sewage related fees fo:

area residents and industries,

Presently the O&M costs are paid

by sewer user charges; plant

~rrprovementswould increase that

rate from

$1.24

per month a~d$0.29 per 1000 gallons to the same

monthly

fee

and

$1.10 per 1000 gallons

(R,190,

read together with

prepared

testimony

p.28,

to correct transcription errors).

Construction

costs are yaid by taxes collected to pay for

bonds

sold

to

finance the corstruction,

Although the record did

not report

the

increase

i

tax rate for plant improvements alone,

the current rate of

$0.30

per

$100

assessed

valuation

(R.190)

would

undoubtedly

increase ~ignificant1y.

With the exception of costs, the Agency disputes little of

the preceding information.

The Agency provided a USEPA report by

the Advanced Wastewater Task Force which indicated user fees of

$163/year! customer

(Ex.33(d), p.4),

The District claims that is

too low and estimates a rate ~,f$1.24 per month and $1.10 per

1000 gallons.

The same Aoe.cy exhibit indicates that the annual

capital

and O&M costs

for t1~eentire project are less than 2,5

of median incomes over $10

fl

0

The District argues that for a

family with a $50,000 market value home and usage of 10 000

gallons per month total ccs’~. (taxes

& user fees) would increase

288

from $8.33/month

tr’ S 3.90/month

(R,190—191),

The Economic

Impact Study recounted thc

D ~trict’s statistics,

but did not

resolve the conflict witt the Agency~sstatistics

(Ex,48,

no.44—46),

Since the

District

~s

~lytng for site specific rules

that.

would relax effluent

1

~

n~to 20/25

(the limits which apply

to all large sewage tr~

r

ants)

from 10

1’~ (the

reits

t

protect streams receivlilj ta~nepercentages of effluent) the

appropriate question is ~hethar the more stringent effluent

standards would improve wa~

quality or water uses.

Srch

improvements must then be h

snced against the technical

feasibility and economic ~ea.~o~ablenessof reduced contamination

since all participants agrer

t at the proposed construction is

technically feasible, thar ceases to be an issue,

±~riefly,the Distr’

tresented testimony and exhiti~s~o

demonstrate that the p1s ~

~

luent and combined sewer over~lo~

have minimal or no impac

downstream dissolved oxygen level~

and that the aquatic hah~’t

s not limited by D,O.,

but is

limited by chioramines an’~mn~nianitrogen.

Thus, they arTle,

if $19 million

is spent on plant improvements, dissolved oxygen

will not increase,

and

e ~

~f dissolved oxygen increa~es,the

habitat for aquatic life

~

~otimprove.

The District bel~evec

that, aside from improvad ~

Ic habitat, Cedar Creek ireets

the

standards for all other ~r~c~it or potential uses.

57~458

---

The District provided

t

timony by Dr. Milton L

Pom~r~tlat

Cedar Creek was presently us~.dfor frequent and somewh’t

successful

fishing

(R,47,

48,

488 and 489), trapping, etc k

watering

(R.138,

479 and 488) and trapping turtles (R.439)~

After discussing his evaluation of the aquatic biology of Cedar

Creek,

Dr.

Bowman concluded that “in light of the present aces of

the upper portion of Cedar Creek, the existing water q~a1ty is

acceptable

for

these uses.~

(R,467,

481),

Several Disti

t

witnesses testified that although plant effluent has an adverse

impact on

the

biological conmunity in Cedar Creek,

the existing

biological community is typical of similar Illinois streams and

improving,

the adverse

effluent impact is predominantly

from

chlorination, any impacts rapidly dissipate downstream,

and

factors other than effluent quality limit diverse biologicil

populations.

Dr. Allison R.

Bringham

performed a 1980 stream study of

henthic

macroinvertebrates a

~d evaluated

a

1976

study

by

the

Agency

Based

on

this

infcrriation

she

concluded,

“that

Cedar

Creek

is

an average

low

gradient,

slowly

flowing

Illincis

stream”

(~,366)and that,

“in

gen~ral

the

diversity of

aquatic

life

increased from 1976 to 1980”

(R,362).

Dr. Charles

B,

Muchmore

testified, based on stre~n ~sst3ng and toxicity calculat~ons,

that,

“the major toxfc

fa

~

ontributed to Cedar Creei 1y tie

G~cburg

sewage treatir-~

~ct discharge was total re~1l~i

chiorinc,..”

(R,330).

A~

ii

District scientists testfied

that

the treatment

plant

lrrl3cts

on

Cedar Creek

dissipate

rapidly:

within

7,7—1!.4

hr

(R,330,332),

within

1,5

mi’~s

(R.362), within

8 miles

cF.

4

P)

and 4.1 miles

(R,467)

11.0,

1

four testified tIef

~romresidual chlorine

ía trs

~r

than plant eff’u~i

r

d improvements in water

~

ity

3rd d verse biologica2

or~

ity. including

substra e,

ack of

extensive rocky riffle,

sedinent, and erosion

(R,324,

337,

425,

467)

In total, the Distr

j

s~cnteda voluminous body of

e~iidencethat, aside Iron ct.1orine, present plant discharg~sdo

~t

have a substantial or

r~1itingimpact on the biologica~

comminity or uses of Ceda: Creek,

The Agency did not present

~v1denre to dispute thes~cld~rs,but did show low dissol~-ed

c~y~e,levels and higi

ii.

iltrogen in Cedar creek

I

LXciblt 33(c) the Ager~jpros

red a Streeter—Phelpa r13d~

2cr

~dar

Creek

which

shows

e~2.

~.

controls

anticipated

in

pr

posed

construction

wil I

roan

t

in

achieving

the

re

~ui red

Lssolved

oxygen

levels.

Testimony

for

the

Die~r1cc b;

James

Huff

cocLclndci

tLct~

Pie

~Icsolved

oxygen

sags

oc~r

.

cs~r to

the

plant

thcn

the

Iperci

5 7-459

---

—8—

model

predicts,

and

that

when

the

plant

effluent

achieves

characteristics

assumed

in

the

model,

dissolved

oxygen

sags

are

lower

than

predicted

(R.775)

A regression analysis shows little

correlation

for

existing

discharge

values

of

DOD

and

ammonia

nitrogen relating to D.O. values (R.778).

The A~ency’smodel

is

based

on

low

sediment

oxygen

demand

typical

of

a

cleaner

stream

bed

(Ex.

33(c),

pp.2

&

6)

and

would

therefore

only

be

valid

for

future

conditions.

The

evidence

presented

to

the

Board. is

that

the

expensive

construction

to

achieve

an

effluent

of

10

mg/l

BOD,~,

12

mg/l

TSS

will

not

substantially

improve

dissolved

oxygen

leVels,

biological

habitat,

or

use

characteristics

for

Cedar

Creek.

Moreover, the lowest D.O. levels occur during

periods

(warm

weather)

when plant effluent is least contaminated

•

For

that

reason,

the

Board

proposes

to

adopt

a

modified

effluent

limitation

for

the District

which

allows

up to 20 mg/l

DOD1

and

25 mg/l TSS only during those periods (cold weather) of reduced

plant

efficiency,

and

more

stringent

limitations

when plant

operations

can

be

more efficient.

A

review

of the District’s

effluent

data

for

the

recent

past

(Group

Ex.

17)

shows

some

values

above

the

modified

effluent limitations.

However, with

careful

attention

to

operating

procedures

and

some

minor

improvements,

such

as

enclosing

the

trickling

filters

to

retain

heat in winter, these levels should be achievable.

The

Board

declines

the

request

to adopt a dissolved

oxygen

standard for

Cedar

Creek of zero.

None of the hearing

participants

provided

testimony

or

exhibits

to

show

such

a

standard would protect existing biological communities

and

uses

of Cedar Creek, or

be

acceptable to USEPA.

The Board reaffirms

that section 302.206 applies to Cedar Creek and directs the

District in today’s order to achieve that standard

not

later

than

November 1, 1984,

by

use

of

effluent

aeration,

in—stream

aeration, or other

methods.

In

its

motion

for

reconsideration

the

Agency

argues

that

“the Board changed the language of Section 304.207(b)(1)

(from

the First Notice Order

such that compliance

with

the dissolved

oxygen

standard

was

only

required

downstream

from the treatment

plant”

and

that the Board has “by implication” deleted the

dissolved oxygen standard upstream of the plant.

That is not

true.

Section 304.207(b)(1) requires that the District assUre

compliance with the downstream dissolved

oxygen

limitations

by

November 1, 1984,

in

order to qualify for relaxed biochemical

oxygen

demand

(DOD)

and suspended solids

(SS) limitations.

It

does

not,

exempt

the District from the dissolvid

oxygen

limitations

of

Section

302.206

with

regard

to

any

reach of Cedar Creek.

57-460

---

Rather, the rule is based upon the recognition that

upstream

dissolved oxygen violations nay result from factors over which

the District has no control,

If, however, dissolved oxygen

violations can be found

to

result

from the District activities,

it

is subject to enforcement.

The District has requested that the ammonia nitrogen and

un—ionized ammonia standards be relaxed,

In essence,

the

District requests that,

below 15 mg/i ammonia nitrogen, maximum

un-ionized ammonia be

increased from 0.04 mg/i to 0.10 mg/i.

This presents a problem.

The testimony of

Dr.

Muchmore

is

that

the

maximum

un—ionized

ammonia

observed

during

his

studies

was 0.03 mg/i

(R.330), which

is below the

0.04

rag/i

limit

established

by

35

Iii.

Adm. Code

302.212.

Dr. York testified

that

the District’s discharges did

not appear to increase

ammonia

nitrogen in Cedar Creek and that

the highest ambient ammonia nitrogen was 0.77 mg/i.

The

Clark-Dietz water

quality survey

(Ex,42) contains,

a

year—long

sampling program with over

50

samples

(Table 3),

a two- month

sampling program

with

nearly

30

samples

(Table

4)

a two day

sampling program with

15 samples

(Table 5).

Although data on pH

and temperature are missing, none of these results are

established to be over

0. 04 mg/I un-ionized ammonia and nearly

all are clearly below

that

level,

Group Exhibit 17 contains a

table showing four years

of downstream ammonia nitrogen levels.

Again,

while

pH

data

is

lacking

and

temperature

is

not

correlated

with

specific

ammonia

nitrogen

levels,

there

is

no

clear

indication that un-ionized

ammonia

values

below

0.04

mg/i

are not

being achieved.

Despite

several

hundred samples,

the Board has

no

evidence

of

an

un~ionized

ammonia

concentration

above

0.04

mg/i,

the

current

standard.

Moreover,

there

was

no

evidence

presented

to

show

that

un-~ionized

ammonia

levels

of

0,10

mg/l

would protect

or

harm

the

present

or

potential

biological

community of Cedar

Creek,

Non—compliance is

a necessary element

when seeking site

specific relaxation of

a generally

applicable

standard.

The

Board

is

aware

that

should

the

District

select

in—stream

or

effluent

aeration

to

achieve

downstream

D.O.

levels,

that may

further

reduce

ammonia

nitrogen

concentrations

(R.472).

Also,

should

effluent

chlorination

be

eliminated,*

the

nitrification

rate

might

increase

(R.348).

Because

of

the

lack of proof of

present

violation

and

the

possibility

of

future

improvement,

the

Board

will

not

adopt

a

less

protective

ammonia

nitrogen

and

un—ionized

ammonia

standard for

Cedar

Creek.

See:

R77-12

(October

14~ 1982);

reversed

in

part,

November

15,

1983,

Illinois

v.

Pollution

Control

Board,

82—2728,

Illinois

Appellate

Court,

First

Judicial

District;

appeal

pending

sub

nom

Illinois

V.

Pollution

Control

Board,

No,

59473.

57-461

---

~10—

COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS

Overflows from the District’s combined sewers are subject to

Section 306.305.

The

District has

requested that the portion of

the rule which governs

combined sewer

overflow first flush not

apply to the District.

Specifically,

the section requires,

“the

first flush of storm

flows?

as determined by the Agency,

shall

meet the applicable effluent standards.”

Galesburg was

originally

constructed

as

a

combined

sewer

community.

However, as

a result

of flooding the District began

a

sewer separation project

in 1967.

Originally over 90

of the

city had combined sewers, now 90

of the city has separate

sanitary and storm Sewers.

The

original 44 overflow points have

remained in the system

(R,237).

Historically, overflows were

large and frequent, now they are smaller and less frequent.

From October to December of 1980,

Huff & Huff,

Inc.

conducted a study to determine the characteristics of first flush

and its fate in the sewer

system.

After two small rain events,

Huff

& Huff conducted tests

and

calculations

on

a

December

6,

1980 storm, Results of

that testing

showed that with two minor

modifications to the

system the treatment

plant could receive

99.8

of the first

flush

volume,

and without modifications the

plant receives 99,8

of the BOD,. and

TSS associated with first

flush

(Ex.

38, p.7).

The Agency responds

that

the two prior rainfall events and

the limited intensity

of

the

December

6

storm render the first

flush

evaluation

invalid

for

determining

compliance with Section

306.305.

The Agency

introduced

“Procedures

for

determining

compliance

with

Rule

602(c)

of

Chapter

3

Present

Section

306,305(a)”

in

support

of

their

arguments

(Ex,

39).

In relevant

part,

that document provides

at

page

3:

(j)

The

storm

chosen

to

determine first flush effects must

have a minimum recurrence interval of one year

(ii)

There should

be sufficient time between the storm

event

chosen to

determine

first.

flush and any previous event,

to allow

for

adequate

solids

deposition in the sewers

and on the

streets.,

As

a rule of thumb, one month

should be

sufficient,

A supplemental

statement

by Mr.

Michael Teirstriep of the

Agency

indicates:

(1)

the

above

procedures

require

a

one

year—one hour storm,

(2)

the

procedure

does not provide a method

of

determining inches

of

rainfall,

(3)

there are only two

recognized sources of

such data

(U.S.

57-462

---

I

—

Paper

40,

and

Illinois

State Water Survey Technical Letter

13),

(4) both give similar

results (1.1

inches,

1.3 inches), and

(5)

the Huff & Huff report chose a value

of

0.75 inches from a 1979

Agency report on urban stormwater management, a result “not

intended in the IEPA

regulation...”.

(Public Comment

#5,

p. 1—2).

Mr.

Huff responded

for the

District stating:

(1) Mr.

Teirstriep admitted a

value of

0,75 inches could be used

(R.738)

(2) of all the CSO

studies to date

only one has achieved the

higher value

(Ex, 50,51)

and

(3)

even if recalculated for a 1.3

inch rainfall

the

CSO

capture drops

from

99.8

to

99.1

(Ex.

53,

p.15).

While the Board has received conflicting testimony on the

rainfall

intensity

the Agency would like to receive in CSO

evaluations,

the language of the procedure

is

not

disputed.

That

language does not mention “hourly intensity”, does not mention

the only two sources of data that may be

used, and does not

mention whether

the minimum,

average, or

maximum hourly intensity

is to he used.

In such circumstances, the event chosen by Huff &

Huff,

Inc., seems

in reasonable compliance with the procedures

for a one—year storm,

In

a similar context

the Agency argues that the two rainfall

events preceding the December

$ event render the results invalid

under Agency procedures.

In the District’s view, competent

experts testified that adequate

solids deposition had occurred

(R.

268—269) and one month of dry weather would be expected once

every 238 years.

(Ex,

53,

p.iO),

The Board will not discount the only current first flush

data presented when competent. testimony

claims

it

to be valid;

there is no testimony that adequate solids deposition did not

occur, and the alternative is additional

delay.

Therefore, the

Board accepts the validity of the District’s study which

demonstrates 99

compliance with the first flush requirements of

Section 306.305(a),

However, the Board will require additional

improvements to the District~scollection system.

The

Board

finds that this program, when

completed,

will

result in

substantial compliance ~ith~.Section 306,305(a),

accordingly, the

District’s request for site—specific regulatory relief is denied.

In its motion for reconsideration the Agency objects

to

one

of

the

required

improvements imposed

upon

the

District

Section

304.207(h)(2)J,

apparently taking the position that

under its

present wording the District could avoid the finding of a

violation under Section 306.305(a) by proving that there

are

sewer backups,

Such le non the intent,

Rather than establishing

57~463

---

basement backups as

a defense to an allegation

of

a Section

306,305(a) violation, basement backups

are

specifically

disallowed if

the

District is to be subject

to relaxed

deoxygenating waste general effluent standards,

The Board did

not

conclude,

and

the proposed rule

does not state, that the

District

should be

exempted from Section

306.305(a).

The Board’s

finding

of substantial

compliance was

based on the District’s

own

evidence

that

over

99

compliance

could be achieved and that the

degree of environmental

harm which

could be expected from such

minor non—compliance

would not justify

the large expenditure

necessary to attain 100

compliance,

If the District’s evidence

is borne out, no violation

of

Section 306,305(a)

could be found

against it.

However,

if the

modifications do not result in

substantial compliance,

a

violation

could be proven.

Some

of

those

modifications are

reflected

in

the conditions of Section

304,207(b) which are

not included

as alternative combined sewer

overflow

rules,

but

rather are

intended

to

give

added

assurance

that

the

District

will

take the

steps

which

are

necessary to

achieve

substantial

compliance with

those

rules.

Further, no

relief

has

been

granted to the

District

from the water quality

standards,

and if overflows from the

District’s

sewer system can

be proven to

cause

or contribute to a

violation of those

standards,

an enforcement action would be

appropriate.

The District has requested site—specific

relief from the

temperature requirements of Section

302,211(c),

A

reading of

that section, and its frequent references to

“heated

effluent”,

shows the request to be misdirected.

This

section

was

never

intended to apply to publicly owned sewage

treatment

works

receiving predominantly residential

flows,

Therefore,

the relief

is not

needed,

The

Board

hereby

adopts the following rule:

Title

35:

Environmental Protection

Subtitle C:

Water Pollution

Chapter

1:

Pollution Control Board

PART 304

Effluent Standards

Subpart B:

Site~SpecificRules and

Exceptions Not of General Applicability

Section

304.207

~

~hares

---

a)

The de~

nat

wastes

general

effluent standards of

Section

304,120(c)

shall

not apply to the Calesburg

Sanitary

District dischar~

into Cedar

Creek.

Such

dischar~es

must meet ~

deoxenating

wastes general

effluent

standards set

below:

CONSTITUENT

STORET

NUMBER

CONCENTRATION (mg/l)

BOD5

~~~-Npvern her

00310

December~

March

20

Suspended

Solids

00530

~nuar

15

~ar-~1a

25

b)

The above

standard

shall apply so long as the Galesburg

Sanitary

District achieves:

1)

by

November

1,

1984,

compliance with

35

Ill.

Adrn.

Code

302 206 throughout Cedar

Creek downstream

~th~~reai:meiitl~out

fall

L

aeration, in~~stream

aeration, or other means,

2)

~eiber~~i?84,

the prevention of overflows

from the ~

prior to sur—

cha~nexcdptwherehasem

e~b~p~

would result,

3)

by

March

1,

1984,

an

operational procedure

for the influeq~jumps

which prevents

~erc~p~::~r sthchar in

at flows

below

~aucao~’i~

4)

~ci1J~,~9~the

elimination

of

all

downspout

connections,

and

5)

9~~ber1 1984,

the

prevention

of

inflow

by

ii~a,~leaking

catch

basins,

replacing

all leakinqmanho.e

lids

and

fr

ames, and

sea l~~dracei~et~

c)

If the

conditions set out

in

paragraph

(bj,

above,

are not

mete the deox~enating

wastes general effluent

standards

of Section 304.120(c)

shall

apply to the

Galesburg

~riitar~

District

discharges

into

Cedar

57-465

---

—14—

I, Christan L.

Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois

Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify that the aboye Opinion

and Order was

adopted on the

____

_____day of

—

,

1984

by

a

vote

of

~

1of~t~~rk

Illinois Pollution

Control Board

57-466