ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September
23,
1983
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
PETITION OF THE VILLAGE OF SAUGET
)
R81—12
AND CITY OF EAST ST. LOUIS RE:
SITE—SPECIFIC COMBINED SEWER
)
OVERFL~ TREATMENT
)
~edR~4e.
First Notice.
PROPOSED OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J. Anderson):
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter comes before the Board on the petition
for site
sipecific rulemaking by the Villa9e of Sauget
(Village), and the
City of East St. Louis
(City),
filed September 30,
1980 as amended
January
29,
1981,
December
15,
1980
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
Ill.
Adm,
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
t’Economic Impact Analysis
of Combined Sewer Overflow Regulations
On East
St.
Louis,
R81_12li,
Doc.
No.
82/08
(Ex,
14).
The
Illinois Environmental
Protection
Agency
(A9ency) 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
hut deny relief from the effluent standards
as
unnecessary.
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.
54-137
2
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
fran
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,
(BoDe,
suspended solids, metals, etc.) which have accumulated in tile
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, 1!80).
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.
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 10.0 mg/l
from 9.9 mg/l while total suspended solids (TSS) should actually
decrease from 359.0 mg/l to 358.7 mg/l.
Petitioners, therefore,
allege that for all practical purposes no detectable environmental
impact would result.
54-138
3
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 American 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_Load
s~~pp~erations
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/I and suspended solids of
658 mg/i accordiT~gto 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~on
was
reported as 260 mg/l,
(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 “treate& flow
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:
*The Villag&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~i76,April
16,
1981,
the
variance
petition was dismissed as insufficient 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.
54-139
4
Daily
Loading,
Annual Loading,
lbs/day
million lbs/year
DOD5
55
DOD5
55
Complete flow Receiving
27,800
40,100
10.1
14.6
Primary Treatment
60
Flow Receiving
32,400
64,700
11.8
23.6
Primary
Treatment
Complete
Bypass
39,300
101,500
14.3
37.0
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 tCD, and the effluent
quality
was
estimated by Russell and Axon as a
BOD5
concentration
of
210
mg/l
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
lCD
with
an
average
effluent
quality
of
99
mg/i
DOD5
and
99
mg/l
of
suspended
solids.
Once completed,
the American Bottoms Regional Wastewater
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/l for
DOD5
and 25 mg/i. for suspended solids.
Table 2—1 of the EcIS
(Dx.
14,
0.
12), reproduced below,
summarizes existing discharges to the Mississippi River and
expected
performance
of
the
American
Bottoms
facility:
Facility
Average
Wastewat
Volume,
er
lCD
DOD
Effluent
Loading, lb/day
TSS Effluent
Loading, lb/day
East St. Louis
MESD—Cahokia
Sauget
Total
18.5
2.9
~.,
31.1
27,800a
2,400b
171000c
47,200
40,100a
2,400b
2,800c
45,300
American
Bottoms
Regional
Plant
27
4,500
5,600
Reduction in
Loading to River
90
80
54-140
5
Note:
a)
Ca1c~rlateuusing
SO.)
concentrations
of 180
mg/l
and 1~ of
260
~a’l ~ror DMP 3ata
b’
~3ac’~g
~th
Y~
~g
ef~l~e.t1evel
of B0D~and
SS
~.
8
2,9 MC~slow,
c)
~ca
g hisid
or 1io~ of
‘~‘Gi and HOD5 of
I 3~
ir
f luen.
The “1nC~~
?~A~
P carc
S
ii
758 in February,
1980 by
Russcll
won (dx
~
c
r~a
t~ ~ota1
average
daily industri~)t~cv
Lo t~e
faciiit~
to be a cut
16 MCD, or 59
of
the average d~~y desig~
fiO~i
~Ies?
~esult
orimarily
from
major fec~
~e
~cate~.
ir
~a:
~‘t
~r
Based on
data from Rus~~ei)
I Ax’n
~..
~ Il a~
-
I PA
4~ Huff concluded
that metals ,~uch ac
~o~~er
1
k
l°rIard
hiorriur.
were
present
at corcent
ion be ~r
p-.~
~
~
ci
nt limi~s,
The
parameters which ri~
o
.i
e
I
c
ds were thought
to
be fluoride and total iron
~eperd no
:~.x ~a~ous
characteristics
of the
CSO.
~p~nandCS0TreamentMternatiies
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 inche3/hour,
and the other October
22,
1979 with
a peak intensity of
0
34
ches’tour
First flush
volume
was calculated to be
20
i
T
lion qn~
ni
Peak flow rate
was calculated at 274 000 ga
lo
s ocr minute
Of
four t~rs~
L
~i
1
r
v
t
~d,
the
cheapest would involve
stal~ ~
of
arge
in bent pumps
to
handle
the
peak
race
and
installincr
a
21
i’~ior.
gallon
concrete
lined
earthen basin with 840
~ca
in~ca
re total
capital
cost
for first
flush caotnre aid r
~ent~on
gould be
$12,120,000,
with an operating and maintenance
o and
m)
cost of
$249,000
per year
Preatmen’-
of tinst ~lush flows
in
the plant
at a
design
averagc
rate
of
I
jI
~
.olcn
ited
o
result
in
a
$2.2
million
capital cost in the treatme~tp
ant. attributable
to first flush treatment
Lesser degrees of CSO capture and treat ient were studied,
The
alternatives,
ticir
costs,
and
pollutant
removal
capabilities
were well summarlieo by Ta~.es~ 1
a:.d
3
/
~r
~he
EcIS:
54
141
Table 3-i,
Alternatives for Controlling Combined Sewer Overflows
~.
Alternative
~scr~p~ion
Estimated Capital
Cost,
$
Estimated O&M
Cost,
$/Yr
Total
Annualized
Cost~$JYr
‘
1.
First
flush
Store and treat and
provide
10
x
OWE
--
20,870,000
561,000
3,190000
II.
First
flush
Store and treat
14,320,000
249,000
2,050,000
Ill.
Treat
as
much
of combined sewage
in New
Treatment
Plant as possible.
Bar
screen
and chlorination on
overflow.
4,670,000
266,000
854,000
IV.
Treat
as much of combined sewage
in New Treatment Plant as possible.
Bar
screen
only on overflow.
2,970,000
8,000
382,000
8Based
on
a
20
year life and an interest
rate of 11,
January 1980 dollars.
Table
3-4,
Pollutants
Removed
and
Di
scharyod
from
the
Four
Stormwater
Management
Alternatives,
Taking
into Account Loss of Three Industrial
Dischargers in
E. St.
Louisa
Annual
Pollutants
Removed,
lbs
Alternative
Description
BOD~
155
Annual
Pollutants
Discharged,
lbs
BOO5
ISS
Existing
0
0
811,000
2,990,000
Ia
—
First flush
-
store
& tre
provide
lOx
OWE
at and
614,000
2,500,000
197,000
490,000
ha
-
First flush
store
& treat
521,000
2,310,000
290,000
680,000
lila
-
Treat
as
much
of
combined
sewage
113,000
360,000
in
new
treatment
plant as
possible,
bar
screen
and
chlorinate
overflows
698,000
2,292,000
IVa
-
Treat
as
much
of combined
sewage
113,000
360,000
in new treatment plant as
possible.
Bar screen only on
overfiow
698,000
2,292,000
,
Notes:
a) Hunter-Packing,
Certainteed,
and
cooling water discharge from
Pfizer
eliminated.
The fourth,
“bar
screen
oniy”
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.
54-142
7
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
MGD
(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 lCD.
The future
average
dry
weather flow is projected as 12
MGD
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 stormwater
flow up to 18
lCD
after rehabilitation.
Flows in excess of 30
lCD
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 Quality
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 thester, which is approxi-
mately river mile 110, and at the Menard Prison, located near
thester (Dx.
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)
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
thester water intake (river mile 110).
This data, in summary,
54-1 C4
indicates
that
the
paiame~er.~
n~i~e~t1y
exceeding
water
quality standards
cii
fr.~ab co1iic~zmand lion.
Dissolved oxygen
(DO) data is only avai able from the East St.
Louis and Chester
stations.
Five
of thirty—five DO samoles taken between 1972 and
1974 at the Chester .~tati~r70
iles I1own-~trcamfrom East.
St.
Louis) were heb w
Ic
5
3
~b stardard,
bu~..samples have
remained above the st~nar~ since 1975
cia~dEf~ctstRequestedRu1e
C an~p
In summary
e
neti
iorern7
irs.
hull, and the Agency
agree that the civ ro
ental cite
n o. grdnting petitioners the
relief requested w~li‘ot be q eat,
Free s-ecific pollutant
categories were specr~’icailyaclcres ed
aeovyger~atingmaterial,
bacteria, and
~‘a~
y mctdl~
TheDOise
a.~
I
u
by
James Suddar
i
~e
t
ii
by Mrs.
Huff.
r. h
r a sJysi’
I
proceeded from several
n-sumpti nv
of
o es~ntationboth
Pu
e
and Axon,
and
0
tota~ion,Mrs
Huff
The cited existinj
30 vio ~tion
ate
~as ascumed to be 7
based on
the afore crted l9~2to 1977 data.
(The 1975,
1976,
and 1977 samples did
r~n~
indicate any DO violation,)
Any water
quality improvements since
1977 will not have been incorporated
in
a lower violation rate.
The expected elfs
wastewater boad
consideratior
I
I
I
as the contr~b
I
p
communities,
SiX
n
r
ii
eSO ~rob
being in the East St
Lc
‘i~
~zcs
lx
1
reduction in ~‘o.~”c
~‘o~
St.
Louis CSO co t~o
I
~r a
~c1c
by
n p
i
ras~ St
iouis~
en ‘pith no
urces,
as well
Ii
1t neighboring
e e listed as
A tac~.2)
Thus,
any
~
~‘~le to East
Finally, wet weatbe
on. itu~ior
L
i
j~boringcommunities
were assumed to be
I
t e
ar e
~
i~
pr
orti nn a~dry weather
discharges.
The deoxygenating
is e
a fri
ha
~o
La
t
St
Louis
are
estimated to be
6
1 million lbs. y~ for discharges from
the treatment plant, and
0 81 ‘~iillionlbs /yr
for discharges
resulting from CSO.
Ba, d on d~ta
C
icernrnn loadings from
other point source~,
~.
Hu~tcab:
e~that under existing
conditions, the Eas
St
bou~sdis”Iarge co: ~ributes to DO water
quality violations
lays
~r Sear,
Co piPtion of the
American
Bottoms plant should derea~e ~hat ~ate
~.9 days per year,
and
first flush treatment
fr a rate of
0
33 days per year.
9
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/I
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.
Louise
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/l,
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
I),
August 18,
1982,
of which action appeal
is pending).
The
violation rate may he
largely attributable to
a combination of
non-point sources and 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
state.
*The
Board notes that~HgEis
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.
54-145
10
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—S 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
~47400,0OUt5,60O,00O
The cost of CSO control plus regionaiization 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
54-146
11
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~spresentation, 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).
54-147
12
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
050 relief on
a “first come,
first served basis”,
rather than in
the
integrated manner established
in
the 050 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 he 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.
As this is a proposed first notice Opinion and Order subject
to revision both at the second notice and final
adoption stages,
it will not appear
in the Board’s published opinion volumes.
Copies will, however, be placed in
the
files made available to
the public.
ORDER
The Board proposes
to adopt the following rule,
first notice
of which
shall be sent to the Secretary of State:
54-148
13
TITLE
35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE C:
WATER POLLUTION
CHAPTER
I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PART 306
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
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 90°,
10 minutes,
40 seconds latitude and west 38°, 36
minutes,
40 seconds longitude.
b)
The first
flush of storm flows shall
meet the applicable
effluent standards, except when such flows would cause
the treatment plant to operate beyond design capacity.
c)
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 c~tifythat the above Opinion and Order
was adopte~onthe
~,31
day of
____________________,
1983 by
Christan
L. MoffetJ4~Clerk
Illinois Pol1ution~oritrolBoard
54-149
