RECEIVED
CLERK'S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOISPOLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
JAN 1 3 2006
Wesley Brazas, Jr .
)
STATE OF
ILLINOIS
Petitioner
)
Pollution Control Board
)
p
131
,..
>
PCB
)
Mr. JeffMagnussen, President
)
(Appeal from IEPA decision
Village of Hampshire
)
granting modified NPDES permit)
and the
)
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency )
Respondents
)
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION BY THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Pursuant to 415 ILCS 5/40(e)(1) and 35 IlI.Adm. Code Section 105, Petitioner, Wesley
Brazas, Jr., hereby petitions for a review of the December 9, 2005 decision of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) to grant a modified National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit No. IL 0020281 to the Village of Hampshire to increase the
discharge of wastewater into Hampshire Creek to the rate of 1 .5 mgd DAF and 4.17 mgd DMF .
In support thereof, Petitioner states as follows
:
Petitioner
1 .
Petitioner resides within the FPA of the Village of Hampshire and submitted comments
in opposition to the granting of the modified NPDES permit . Petitioner is situated to be affected
by the issuance of this modified permit and by offensive conditions or other violations of water
quality and other environmental degradation caused by the issuance of this modified permit
.
Petitioner relies upon the EMS services of the Village of Hampshire. See Exhibit I for issues
Petitioner raised before the IEPA
.
Page 1 of 8
2 .
Although requested by Petitioner and other citizens of Hampshire area affected by this
permit, the IEPA has refused to hold a public hearing regarding this modified permit
.
Hampshire Creek
3. Hampshire Creek and associated tributaries flow around the Village of Hampshire and
discharge into the Kishwaukee River Watershed . Hampshire Creek is classified as General Use
Water with a 7Q10 flow value of zero . However, during storm events, Hampshire Creek
regularly overflows its banks. State Street, the primary street for vehicular access to the Village
of Hampshire, is below the 100 year floodplain elevation on the north and south approaches to
the Village and becomes impassable during flood events .
4.
EMS services are delivered via State Street and the delivery of such services is severely
impacted by the flooding of State Street
.
5
.
Under the existing policies, procedures and enforcement mechanisms of the IEPA, the
water quality of Hampshire Creek has been on a precipitous decline, causing Hampshire Creek to
be listed by the IEPA in 2004 as a 303(d) impaired stream . Although a TMDL study has not been
performed on Hampshire Creek, one of the suspected sources of stream impairment is the
effluent from Hampshire's sewage treatment plant
.
Village of Hampshire
6 .
The Village of Hampshire is located in Kane County Illinois and is wholly within the
Chicago Ozone Non-attainment Area
.
7 .
The Village of Hampshire has certified as true, accurate and complete that the "total
population to be served by this modified permit is 3,805 and no more
.
8 .
The Village of Hampshire has recently adopted a comprehensive land use plan which
calls for the conversion of over 15,000 acres of farmland, with a substantial portion designated as
Page2 of 8
"prime" farmland, into non-farm uses, such as, residential and commercial development . The
Village of Hampshire 2003 Facilities Plan Amendment estimates that current Village
policies
and actions are designed to increase the population to 21,275 by 2013 and 28,275 by year 2023 -
far in excess of the NIPC 2020 estimate of 5,143
.
9 .
The Village of Hampshire has failed to conduct
a comprehensive environmental
assessment and/or an environmental impact statement to define and quantify the environmental
impacts to air quality, water quality and flooding resulting from the conversion of over 15,000
acres of farmland into non-farm uses and a population explosion to 28,275 by 2023
.
10. The Village of Hampshire has failed to enact a sustainable growth ordinance which
would have established reasonable growth budgets to ensure the Village of Hampshire maintains
compliance with such things as population growth budgets and motor vehicle emission budgets,
which are relied upon by other agencies, including, but not limited to, NIPC, CATS and IEPA,
in
certifying the Chicago Ozone Non-attainment Area is in compliance with USEPA regulations,
requirements and statutes .
11
.
In lieu of a sustainable growth ordinance, the Village of Hampshire has enacted a series
of development moratoriums directly linked to the capacity of the Village's wastewater treatment
plant. As written, the moratorium ordinances do not allow the Village to approve the conversion
of farmland to non-farm uses until such time as further increases in thee design maximum flows
of the wastewater treatment plant have been approved by the IEPA
. One such ordinance states in
pertinent part
:
"The Village shall not receive, consider or process any Petition for Annexation,
or any
application for approval of any Concept Plan, Preliminary Plan, or Final Plan for any
subdivision, in or on which it is proposed to include any residential dwelling units ; or any
Petition for Re-zoning of any land to be classified within any residential zoning district in
the Village, for a period of six months from the date of this Ordinance, or unless and until
the Village has completed the following, whichever shall first occur
:
Page 3 of 8
a .
Approval and permitting for construction of and discharge from the
planned expansions of the Village's Wastewater Treatment Plant, first to 1 .5 mgd
capacity, and thereafter, to 2.76 mgd capacity
.
. ."
12
.
The Village of Hampshire owns and operates a Public Water Supply system which
currently consists of four deep sandstone wells.
All of the wells produce water which exceeds
the current radium potable water standard of 5.0 pCi/l .
See Exhibit 2 .
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
13
.
The IEPA issues NPDES permits for discharges into receiving waters and has an
affirmative duty to ensure that the receiving waters are not degraded due to the single effect of a
permit applicant, but also, ensure the cumulative effects of all permits on said receiving
waters
maintains the quality of waters that is better than
water quality standards, and prevents
unnecessary deterioration of waters of the State
.
14. The IEPA issues permits for public water supply construction and has an affirmative duty
to ensure that withdrawals from permitted wells are operated at sustainable yields without
mining and degradation to the aquifers
.
15
.
The IEPA is responsible for monitoring air quality and implementing the anti-degradation
and anti-backsliding requirements of the Clean Air Act
.
16 .
IEPA's duty to evaluate reasonably foreseeable and cumulative effects of this
action is
stated CFR 1508.7 :
"impacts on the environment which result from the incremental impacts of the
action
when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of
what agency (Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions ."
Statement of Issues Raised
Flood Control
Page 4 of 8
17
.
In 1956, the Village of Hampshire began operation of a wastewater treatment plant with a
DAF of 0.136mgd. In 1965, the wastewater treatment plant was expanded to 0.250 mgd DAF
and in 1979, was expanded again to 0.456 mgd DAF
.
18
.
On July 21, 2004, the IEPA issued a modified NPDES permit no. IL 0020281 which
increased the permitted discharge to 0 .75 mgd DAF and 1 .88 mgd DMF
.
This modified permit
also increased the effluent Load Limits discharged to Hampshire Creek
.
19. On June 17, 2004, prior to the issuance of the modified permit to 0 .75 mgd DAF, the
Village of Hampshire submitted an application to increase the discharge to
1.50 mgd DAF and
4.17 mgd DMF. Said application is the subject of this action
.
20. The Kane County Stormwater Ordinance prohibits "developments" from increasing the
flood elevations and decreasing the flood conveyance capacity upstream and downstream
of the
development
.
The Village of Hampshire is a "person causing a
development" and the
wastewater treatment plant expansion is a "development" subject to the requirements of the Kane
County Stormwater Ordinance .
21. In contravention to the requirements of the Kane County Stormwater Ordinance,
the
Village of Hampshire freely admits the increase in discharge to 4.17 mgd DMF will
increase
the
flood surface water elevation of Hampshire Creek
.
Effluent Issues
22 .
Typical NPDES permits issued by IEPA state pollutant limits as Load Limits in lbs/day
and Concentration Limits in MG/L .
23. The Public Notice f r this permit states that Load Limits are calculated by using the
formula: 8.34 x (Design Average and/or Maximum flow in MGD) x (Applicable Concentration
in mg/1). However, the permit of December 9a', unexplainably deviates from this formula . For a
Page 5 of 8
Load Limit of 63 lbs/day for CBOD5 at a flow of 1 .5 mgd DAF, the Concentration Limit must
be 5.0 mg/l and not 10 mg/l as stated in the permit .
24. The IEPA and the Village of Hampshire failed to perform a study assuring
that the
increase in discharge, when combined with other sources, will not cause a violation of any
applicable water quality standard as required by Special Condition 5
.
25. That the Village of Hampshire has proposed constructing a "polishing
wetland" to
receive the effluent prior to discharge to Hampshire Creek, but the IEPA has refused to
require
sampling of the effluent as it leaves the wetland and is discharged into Hampshire Creek
.
26 .
That Special Condition 9 requires the Village of Hampshire to report on a variety of
metals at 18 months and 12 months prior to July 31, 2009, however, said monitoring
fails to
include a requirement to report radium, which the Village of Hampshire freely admits is present
in the effluent and which Hampshire believes is present is substantial quantities as to
cause the
effluent to frequently violate the existing water quality standard of 1 .0 pCi/I .
27 .
That IEPA permitted an increase in discharge to 1 .5 mgd DAF and 4.17 mgd DMF
without evaluation of the results of the Special Condition 9 parameters and as a result,
unnecessarily jeopardizes the water quality of Hampshire Creek
.
Municipal Water Supply
28. The Village of Hampshire has not determined an adequate source of water to support the
wastewater treatment plant expansion to 1 .5 mgd DAR
The Village is studying alternatives to
its current reliance on the deep aquifers .
29 .
The Bloomington Aquifer is located within the Hampshire FPA and is an alternative
source of municipal water supply under study by the Village of Hampshire . See Exhibit 3
.
Page6 of 8
30 .
The Village of Hampshire intends to permit the construction of condominiums and
parking lots on the most sensitive recharge areas of the Bloomington Aquifer without
assuring
the capacity and rechargeability of the Bloomington Aquifer will not be degraded
. See Exhibit 4 .
31 .
The withdrawals from the deep aquifer appear to be at their maximum sustainable
rate
and may not support the additional withdrawals needed by the Village of Hampshire to support a
WWTP expansion to 1 .5 mgd DAR
Clean Air Act
32
.
In 2005, the Chicago Ozone Non-attainment Area recorded fifteen days exceeding the 8-
hour ozone standard, a 150% increase from the year 2003 . Air quality in the Chicago Ozone
Non-attainment Area appears to be backsliding
.
33
.
The Village of Hampshire has refused to voluntarily control the growth
of VMT to
comply with the MVEB of the Chicago SIP. Hampshire's willful non-compliance of the MVEB
of the SIP will cause air quality in the Hampshire area and the Chicago Ozone Non-attainment
Area to deteriorate .
34 .
'
The Village of Hampshire reported the annual average daily flow rate of 0 .389 mgd for
2003, 0.486 mgd for 2002 and 0.413 mgd for 2001, averaging less than 60% capacity
at the
previously permitted 0.75 mgd DAR
35 .
The Village of Hampshire will not face an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship
if this
permit modification is not granted .
WHERFORE, the Petitioner asks that the Illinois Pollution Control Board set aside the
modified NPDES permit IL 0020281 issued to the Village of Hampshire on December 9, 2005 as
Page 7 of 8
not sufficiently protective of the environment and not in accord with the law, and remand to the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency for issuance of a permit denial letter
.
Respectfully submitted,
Wesley Brazas, Jr
.
Petitioner
44W331 Big Timber Road
Hampshire, IL 60140
Dated: January 13, 2006
Page 8 of 8
Wesley J. Brazas, Jr., P.E.
44W331 Big Timber Road
Hampshire, Illinois
60140
October 11, 2005
Mr. Al Keller
Manager, Permits Section
Division of Water Pollution Control
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Re:
Draft Modification of NPDES Permit No . IL 0020281
Village of Hampshire STP Expansion
To DAF=1,500,000 gallons per day
Dear Mr. Keller :
At last Tuesday's hastily arranged meeting, it was one small
step in the right direction that
Hampshire is admitting they have previously mismanaged their sewage treatment plant. The
citizen's of Hampshire are rightfully concerned that if Hampshire can screw-up a treatment plant
currently discharging approximately 430,000 gallons a day so badly that Hampshire Creek
became a 303(d) listed stream, Hampshire can do a lot more environmental damage discharging
at nine times that much.' The fact that this screw-up occurred under your watchful eyes does not
give us the faith the reporting and monitoring procedures currently used by your department will
not let it happen again.
Significant fatal errors in the submission and evaluation of the
subject permit modification
require this permit request to be DENIED. These fatal errors include :
•
Knowing errors of material fact made by the Applicant, the Village of Hampshire
.
•
Failure to mitigate the additional flooding to Hampshire and Coon Creeks
as
required by the
Kane County Stormwater Ordinance
.
•
Failure to disclose population increases to justify purpose and need for expansion .
•
Failure to disclose source of municipal water supply to support STP expansion
.
•
Failure to provide complete financial data demonstrating financial capacity to
construct, operate and maintain the expanded facility .
•
Errors by IEPA in setting effluent discharge limits .
•
Proposed concentration limits must be cut in half to correspond to required mass
limits .
•
Errors in IEPA's procedures for evaluating permits.
•
IEPA's piecemeal permit process and lack of coordination with other departments
results in State approved environmental degradation, contrary to environmental
laws and regulations
.
IEPA Draft NPDES IL 0020281
October 11, 2005
Page 2 of 8
Errors of Material Fact by Applicant, the Village of Hampshire
Hampshire's failure to disclose relevant facts for IEPA's use in evaluating this permit request
is
sufficient grounds to deny this permit under Section 402.(a)(5)(b)(1)(C)(ii) of the NPDES
program for attempting to obtain this permit by misrepresentation and the
failure to disclose
relevant facts .
Failure to Mitigate Additional
Flooding to
Watershed
"Will this expansion of the sewer treatment plant cause additional flooding?" is a material fact
that must be fully disclosed on the permit application
.
This sewage treatment plant expansion is
required to comply with the
Kane
County
Stormwater Ordinance, eff. January 1, 2002,
which
prohibits increases in flood elevations or decreases in flood conveyance capacity upstream or
downstream of the site ."
From an initial rated discharge of 136,000 gallons per day when the
sewage treatment plant began operations to the current proposed maximum storm flow of
4,170,000 gallons per day, and a future expansion to approximately 9,500,000 gallons per day,"'
Hampshire's sewage treatment plant expansions are causing flooding in the Hampshire Creek
and Coon Creek Watersheds to get very much worse
.
At last Tuesday's meeting, you listened to residents describe existing flooding downstream of
Hampshire. Hampshire admits this project will increase the flood elevation of the creek, and the
dramatic increase in everyday flow will result in the creek overflowing its banks and causing
flooding much more often.' The costs to dredge and widen Hampshire and Coon Creeks all the
way to the Kishwaukee River to contain the creek waters within the
creek channel at the
dramatically increased base flows will be substantial and
may not even be feasible if the
Kishwaukee River cannot accept the additional flow .' Hampshire's refusal to police itself and
comply with the provisions of the
Kane County Stormwater
Ordinance
is
reason enough to deny
this permit .
•
Hampshire must redesign its sewage treatment plant expansion
to comply with the
provisions of the
Kane County Storm water Ordinance
by providing compensating
detention to not increase stream flows, or by other means
.
Failure to Disclose the "Real" Population Served
Just two weeks after the public comment period ended for the permit to increase Hampshire's
discharge to 750,000 gpd, Hampshire was back at your office requesting
this expansion to
1,500,000 gpd."'
In its application, Hampshire certified the population to be served
by this
expansion is 3,805."" At the currently permitted 750,000 gpd capacity, the plant would operate
at approximately 50% capacity. NIPC projects Hampshire would grow to 5,143 by 2020",
at
which time the plant would be operating at only 69% of capacity and still not require expansion
.
Hampshire has not disclosed any capacity warning letters issued by your office to warrant an
expansion above the current DAF of 750,000 gpd .
IEPA Draft NPDES IL 0020281
October 11, 2005
Page 3 of 8
•
Hampshire has failed to show purpose and need on the NPDES application for expansion
.
Failure to Disclose Water Supply to Support SIP E rpansion
Water supply is a very strained resource . Hampshire's previous studies projected a 63% decline
in per capita water consumption by 2008.'
More than a year after submitting this permit
application, Hampshire still has not identified a source of water to support the proposed
sewage
treatment plant expansion.' Lake Michigan water is fully allocated and the City of Chicago is
currently trying
to reduce consumption
to payback a
"water debt"
from previous
overwithdrawals."
Deep aquifers have not fully recovered from the overmining of previous
years and may not support any increased withdrawals .'
There is a shallow aquifer available
near Hampshire, the Bloomington Aquifer, but Hampshire has authorized
the construction of
condos and parking lots over the most sensitive aquifer recharge areas, which will limit or even
destroy this aquifer .
Where will the water come from?
The relevance of this question to the NPDES process is found at Question A.8.e . on page 4 of
Hampshire's application. This question requires the disclosure of wastewater disposal by other
means, such as, underground percolation or well injection
.
These alternative disposal methods
would also have the benefit of reducing the discharge to Hampshire Creek and the flooding
caused by the treatment plant expansions
.
In addition, the water purification process generates
waste as the water is filtered and softened for public use . Where and how are these wastes being
disposed of? Through the sanitary sewer system so they are included in the total discharge into
Hampshire Creek?
Or a separate discharge to Hampshire Creek which now requires the
summation of these separate pollution loads and may require a lowering of the discharge limits
for the sewage treatment plant .
•
Water supply and impacts to treatment plant flows
and stream loadings must be
determined prior to evaluation of this permit
.
Failure to Provide Comprehensive Financial Data
Hampshire admits it did not properly maintain its existing sewage treatment plant and required
state aid to bring their sewage treatment plant into compliance
.
It is Hampshire's affirmative
duty to provide comprehensive financial data disclosing how the past errors have been corrected
and the additional ordinances/regulations/procedures adopted to prevent the
sewage treatment
plant from going into disrepair in the future
.
The financial data Hampshire submitted with the NPDES .. application does not include any
information regarding how this expansion will be paid for.''
General revenues? Bond sales?
Water and sewer fee increases? In addition, Section 1203 of the
Kane County Stormwater
Ordinance
requires a five year financial plan for the installation and maintenance of the wetlands
constructed by this proposed expansion and an irrevocable letter of credit
in favor of Kane
IEPA Draft NPDES IL 0020281
October 11, 2005
Page 4 of 8
County to ensure the wetlands will be maintained . Hampshire did not include the 5-yr wetland
plan in its application
.
•
Comprehensive financial disclosure is required prior to evaluating application
.
Errors in Effluent Limits Proposedby IEPA
Under the NPDES program, 40 CFR 122.45(b) requires pollution concentrations to be calculated
based upon design flow, which are typically stated in concentrations of mg/l
.
In addition to
concentration limits, 40 CFR 122 .45(f)ii requires pollutant limits to be restated as mass based
limits, typically, pounds
.
The mass based pollutant limits should be easily calculated by the
formula contained on page 3 of the Public Notice for this permit
:
Concentration Limit, mgi x Design Flow, mgd x 8 .34 conversion factor = Mass, lbs/day
Using CBODS as an example, a concentration limit of 10 mg/I x 1 .5 mgd x 8.34 = a mass of 125
lbs, but the proposed permit limit is 63 lbs. Why doesn't the math work?
The Pollution Control Board (PCB) regulations I have reviewed list effluent limits based only
upon concentration, e.g . "No effluent discharged to the Lake Michigan basin shall exceed 4
mg/L of BOD5 or 5 mg/L of suspended solids."' I have not found any regulations using mass
based units as the primary method to control discharges. I have verified the concentration limits
convert exactly to mass units in over two dozen NPDES permits currently pending before IEPA,
EXCEPT FOR HAMPSHIREI
Since federal regulations require mass limits to convert exactly to concentration limits, even with
the proposed halving of the concentration limits to correspond with the required mass limits,
Hampshire's STP would still be too dirty to discharge into Lake Michigan waters
.
•
Change concentration limits to correspond to the mass limits for the proposed flow rate of
1.5 mgd DAR
Higher concentration limits for the design maximum flow are not
warranted, since the permit specifies a daily maximum mass limit of 125 lbs that would
require the concentration limit not to exceed 3.6 mg/I at DMF=4.17 mgd :
Mass Load Limits, lbsiday
Concentration Load Limits, mgll
Parameter
Mo. Av .
Weekly Av
.
Daily Max.
Mo. Av.
Weekly Av.
Daily Max .
CBOD5
63
125
5
10
Sus. Solids
75
150
6
12
Amm-Nitrogen
Mar-MaylSep-Oct
9.4
34
0.75
2.7
Jun-Aug
9.4
24
34
0.75
1 .9
2.7
Nov-Feb
11
33
0.88
2.6
IEPA Draft NPDES IL 0020281
October 11, 2005
Page 5 of 8
Errors in IEPA's Procedures for
Evaluating
Permits
It should be axiomatic that the permit process in your department should
not undermine and
invalidate the environmental programs of other departments
.
IEPA's duty to examine the whole
and not just increments is succinctly stated in CFR 1508.7 :
"impacts on the environment which result from the incremental impacts of the action
when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of
what agency (Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions ."
Piecemeal Process
In my review of the file at the only location I could view it,
EPA's Springfield office, I was
surprised a summary of previous actions regarding this permit were not included . One could not
trace the history of permitted discharges and concentration limits to determine the trend of mass
limits going up or down over the years and correlate these limits with the resulting impacts to the
water quality of the creek.
IEPA's incremental approach to permit review allows flooding to get a "little bit worse"
with
each permit modification. The result is the State of Illinois is partners with local government to
make flooding very much worse over the longer term
.
From an initial discharge of 136,000
gallons per day when the sewage treatment plant began operations to the proposed maximum
storm flow of 4,170,000 gallons per day, IEPA's policies and procedure's have been allowing
flooding on Hampshire Creek to get very much worse
.
IEPA Fiduciary Responsibility
Hampshire has recently demonstrated it does not have the financial wherewithal to properly
maintain its sewage treatment plant and required state aid to bring its plant
into compliance .
Hampshire has submitted this request for expansion prior to Hampshire having a demonstrated
track record it has the financial capacity to operate and maintain the brand new 750,000 gpd
facility. IEPA has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure the State's investment in the 750,000 gpd
facility is protected and must require Hampshire to submit comprehensive financial
data and a
letter of credit to ensure the previous debacle will not reoccur .
Clean Air Act (CAA)
Hampshire is part of the ozone non-attainment area in Northeastern Illinois
.
To illustrate how
difficult it is to clean up our air once it is polluted, in the ten year period from 1994 to 2003,
ozone pollution has shown only a 2% decrease .'
This year there have been 15 days'
when
ozone exceeded the 8 hour standard compared to 10 days in 2003'' 6 .
That's a 150% increase!
Clearly, not enough has been done to clean up our air and we still have a long way to go
.
It is long recognized the conversion of farmland to rooftops increases motor vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) which corresponds to an increase in air pollution
. 6' The Chicago Area
IEPA Draft NPDES IL 0020281
October 11, 2005
Page 6 of 8
Transportation Study (CATS) is responsible for preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) and corresponding Transportation Implementation Plans
(TIPs) which are used to
prioritize transportation projects and obtain federal funding to improve air quality. The TIP is
based upon NIPC population and employment projections .
If Hampshire converts farmland to
rooftops faster than NIPC projections, CATS will underestimate the pollution generated by these
new rooftops, our air will not get cleaner as required by the anti-degradation and anti-backsliding
requirements of the CAA, and additional sanctions, including loss of federal
highway funds,
could be imposed by the EPA Therefore, IEPA must verify STP expansions are in compliance
with the land use and population estimates of the TIPS to avoid jeopardizing, statewide federal
highway funds .
Hampshire's response to Question 7 clearly illustrates Hampshire's intent was to immediately
expand to a DAF of 3.47 mgd, far in excess of the population and VMT projections used in the
TIPs .
Hampshire's comprehensive plan calls for the destruction of over 15,000 acres of
farmland for the construction of residences .' Hampshire has failed to affirmatively demonstrate
it is in compliance with population, VMT and air pollution budgets of the 2005-09 TIP
.
•
Hampshire failed to affirmatively demonstrate compliance
with all environmental
impacts of this expansion, such as, the CAA requirements of population, VMT and air
pollution budgets of the TIPs
.
Conclusion
As taxpayers, we cannot afford the costs of correcting the cumulative environmental damage
caused by State government and local government partnering to evade their environmental
responsibilities by designing incremental actions that degrade our environment a "little bit" this
time.
Given Hampshire's past failure to properly maintain
it's sewage treatment plant, given
Hampshire's failure to comply with the Kane
County
Stoamwater
Ordinance,
given Hampshire's
reported population does not justify an STP expansion, given Hampshire's failure to procure a
reliable potable water supply to support the STP expansion and given Hampshire's
failure to
disclose the environmental impacts of reasonably foreseeable future actions, and given IEPA's
errors in procedure evaluating this application and overstating the proposed concentration
limits
requires the IEPA to DENY this permit modification
.
Wesley 7,83
Jr., P.E .
t
Attch: Table 9,.,1003
PotableW
anagement Plan for Tillage of Hampshire.
Table III-3,
2003 Comprehensive Plan, Village ofHampshire.
1E.PA Draft NPDES IL 0020281
October 11, 2005
Page 7 of 8
'
On page 3 tithe permit application, the aar-l average daily flow was 389,000 Spit in 2003,486,000
gpd in
2002, and 413,000 gpd in 2001 which averages to 429,000 gxl
Proposed maximum daily flow is 4,170,000 gpd or
9 tames the 1979 permitted flow x'456,000 gad
.
•
See
Kane Corwly
&onnwaser
Ordinance,
eff 7armary, 1,2002. The Village
d
Hampshire is a "person causing a
developmart" (see Sections 104(31) and 104(95)) and Hampshire'ssewage"tpkaa Ogwnion is a
"development (am Saxon 104(32)) subject to the requirements of the ordinance.
•
At the flown design a
flow of 3.47 mgd, the design maximum flow wadd be apprcadmiMdy 9.65 mgd=
3.47 x 2.78. See "Village's Response to Citizen Comments After Public Response" dated August 8,
2005, response
soQuestioa 7, page 6. The sorest discharge request uses a lhaar 42.78lbr (design maximum fow)f(dddgn
average flow) =4.l7mgd/l.Smgd= 2.78 .
•
At lliea lay's meeting,B-.-
l. m did no disclose the mush smaller flow it takes to overflow the weds banks,
causing a "flood" as defined in Section 104(42) of the
Kate
Cowfly
Sto nwater Ordinance.
Hampshire's STP
expansion, which Macsaes base flow elevations in thecreek and makes flooding a "little bit worse" is in deer
violation of Section 201(a) which requires
no
manse in flood elevations and me
deaease
in flood conveyance
capacity
ofthecreek .
•
For example, on the Willow-Higgins Creek Basin tributary to the Des Plaines River, a significant amount of the
seek flow is firm a MWRD sewage treatment plant
Enonoons flood control banns have roe* been built on
O'Hare Airport and Touhy Avenue costing teas of millions of dollars to reduce the flooding caused, in part, by the
sewage ucatmdS plant outflows
.
•
Comment peiod for the 750,000 gpd increase opened on April 30, 2004 and closed onhue 30,20D4.
lime's application for expansion to 1,500,000 gpd was filed at >EPA on hue 17,2004.
•
See NPDES Application, page 2 of 21
.
"s
See NIPC's 2020 regional population projections at htte:/Avww.nit>c.orRAest/revised 2020 table .htm(endorsed
September 27, 2000) .
•
See Table 9 from Suction 1 of the
2003
Pbtabk WaterManagement
Plmt fr Village ofNanpahire, Kate
Count, Illinois
by Engineering Enterprises, Inc., dated November 2003. Water usage was projected to decline to
100 gallons per day per capita in 2008
firm
159 gallons pa day per capita in 2002 . Also, population equivalents
were prejatad to be 24,530 by 2018 and 28,275 by 2023, greatly exceeding NIPC's fereast .
•
See response to Commas 9 from "Village's Response to Citimess Comments AflaPublic Notice" dssed Aagna 8,
2005 .
id See
The Future ofWaterAvadlab!bty& Use to t eChicago Region,
presentation to "Working for a Sustainable
Future" an November 2,2002 at Yorkville, Illinois pages 2-5 .
a Md
.,pages 2 and 7.
"a
See pages 60,55 and 62 from
Facilities Plan (revised SA14)
appended to Hampshire's NPDES application .
x'v
See 35 Bt. Adm. Code 304.120..
" See Lake County Public Works Depattmeat,1IA022055, DAF-16 mgd, CDODS-10 mg/1, CBODS=1,334 lbs .
The math-> Mess= I6 legs{ x 10 mg/i x8.34 =1,334.4 round to 1,334
cabs
Also, Village of Kirk land,1L0064092, DAF-0 .31 mgd, CBODS=25 mg/l, CBOD5=65 lbs
IEPA Draft NPDES IL 0020281
October 11, 2005
Page 8 of 8
The math-> Meta-0.31 eWd x 25
we
x 8.34 -64.63 round to 65
PA
Also Village of Dwight STP expansion, 11A022641, DAF-0 .864 / 0.983 mgd (etdatiag/proposed), CBOD5=10 /
10 mgA, CBODS-72 /8216x. Note increased mass loaM*
while
maintaining exigiog concentration limit.
The math Existing-> Mass a 0.864 mgd x 10 mg1l
x
8.34=72.05 round to 72 bs
The malt
PA
po_ed-> Mast=0.983 mad x 10 mgs x8.34=81.98 road to 82 bs.
See
IIIlnoisAamaal Air QaalityReporl 2003,
Executive Summary, page
ix.
Statewide, there
have
been 27 exceodances so hr this year compared to I I in 2003' a sta
g 245% increase!
See IEPA Illinois Ozone 8-hour Exceedaace Summary at http://www.epa.state . it.us/air/ozone/exceedances.html .
' SeehftnoisA
AtrQaml#yRepwt20R9,TableB2
.
t
See EPA tenet to CATS dated March 26, 1997, which states input
11
'°lire United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is concerned with the environmewal
impala of the past trends in the Udcagp area whkh showed dwendaNzolou attire regionaid
devdops of agripdlmal lands.
Ahhonh
the C icago mdmpolitfa area population pew by orgy 4
percent between 1970 and 1990, the region's land area pew by 35 perm and the residential land
eonaomp0on by 46 pe
cs
T usetreeshave the effect of inc easing air pollution and water pollution
and
contribute to ecological degradation and watershed problems . For example, the Federal Highway
won eathiates daily vehicle miles ofttavel (VMT) grew by 22 percent between 1989 and 1994.
This increase is VMT coitrbatos to air polbdion from motor vehicles such as the amount of volatile
os8qnic compounds„ ad pati ulaea released to the air .
Of the three kid use policy options render consideration, USEPA eidociea the
uncoil,
agricultural protection,
and no thud airport laid use option because this option will most favorably address those mends that ere
adversely affecting air and water quality . The USEPA applauds the work ofcommunity leaders aid
Northeastern
INioois Pbtaaiig Commission to develop policies designed to slow the past outward trends
and increase inndevelopment
.-
° See Table IIl3. Centparison of l'ad~tiog nod Fntnre Lad Use In49-Squat Mile Plimdag Area, 2003
Comprehenslue Pima, tillage ofHmnpshbr.
Agriculture comprises 25,900.48 acres or 81.89% of the existing land
tees to Hanrpelere's Plemleg Area. In the 8mte, agriculture would be dramatically reduced to only 6,166.52am
or 19.50% in favor of housing, which would grow to 18,268 .72 acres or 57.76%.
ENGINEERING EN7791MU, INC.
SUGAR
GROVE, ILLNOIG
COPYNOIIT 1003
VILLAGE OF HAMPSHIRE
WATER WORKS SYSTEM EVALUATION
PROJECTED WATER USE
TABLE NO.9
RKROOFI
I.AVG.DAY70AVILDAY
fA7
PATIO OF WAX DAY TOAVG.DAY
200
200
200
aapun
w....lr...a~y~rya
•r
rprwuw'sPKwru.
PRO.EC7® OR CALCIAATEO QUAN177ESARESf1DWNW ITALICS
QUANTITIES
OBTA*CPROM20LSRCOROsAREN EOLD
OUANTRIES FOR 2W
IMMUOE PO(NTHE NORTHERN AND CENTRAL WATER SYSTEMS
VILLAGE
OF
HAMPSHIRE
POTABLE WATER MANAOB.B(f
PLAN
GECTIp11I
PAGE 10
YEAR20M
YEAR 2013
YEW 2018
YEAR 2203
POPIAATIONEOUNNHN78
3400
4000
21275
24530
Z4275
ANNUAL PUMPAGE
MAXMUMMONTHLY PIMPAGE
MNWtNM DRY WEATHERMOWN
1910300 GAL
a3T3,OW GAL
324504000 GAL
774517,500 GAL
$94344000 GAL
1.03;037.600 GAL
AVERAGE DAILY PUWAGE
534022 GAL
904000 GAL
1127,600
GAL
1451000 GAL
x521.500 GAL
MAXIMUM AVERAGE DULY PUMPMlE
n+,710
GAL
MAgMUMDVLYPUMPAGE
92SPO GAL
t.Af4000 GAL
1,25{000 GAL
4904000 GAL
45W,000 GAL
COMPUTED MAXIMUM HOUR
74917 GAL
154000 GAL
354553 GAL
404833 GAL
471.250
GAL
COMPUTED MA)UMUM HOUR
L257 GPM
2500 GPM
4910 GPM
L614 GPM
7,854 GPM
AVILON0PER$OCIY
.
1M GPCD
100
ano
100
GPCO
100 GPCD
100 GPGO
Table 111-3
Comparison of Existing and Future Land Use In 49-Square Mile Planning Area
Major Roads Include:
Allen Road
Big Timber Road
Brier HID Road
Gast Road
Interchange Existing, NW Tollway and US 20
NW Tollway and Brier HID Road
Ketchum Road
US Route 20
Chapter III, Future Land Use
Hennig Road
IL Route 72
Widmayer Road
Outerbelt Freeway
Chapter 111, Pago 8 of 16
Existing Land Use
I
2003 Future Land Use
Land Use Classification
Acres
% of Total
Acres
% of Total
Agriculture
25,900.48
81.89%
8,166.52
19.50%
Agribusiness
642.15
2.03%
760.30
2.40%
Forest Preserve/Open Space
36&80
1.17%
568.82
2.99%
Parks and Recreation
94.80
0.30%
123.84
0.39%
Stormwater Basins and Farm Ponds
116.07
0.37%
173.96
0.55%
Estate Residential (0.24 to 0.80 unitslacre)
2,640.78
8.35%
8,999.47
28.45%
Large Lot Residential (0.80 to 1.25 units/acre)
148.24
0.47%
6,334.45
18.06%
Low-Densty Residential (1 .25 to 2.0 units/acre)
278.53
0.88%
2,463.00
8.80°.6
Medium Density Residential (2 .0 to 4.0 units/acre)
16.78
0.05%
302.22
0.73%
Medium Density Residential (4.0 to 7.0 unIts/acre)
19.12
0.06%
169.55
0.54%
Institutional
77.88
0.25%
204.09
0.65%
Municipal/Governmental
22.05
0.07%
22.47
0.07%
Historic Business District
9.10
0.03%
9.10
0.03%
Community Commercial Center
97.48
0.31%
845.48
2.04%
Regional Commercial
-
0.00%
340.29
1.08%
Interchange Commercial
161.19
0.51%
336.26
1.06%
Office
-
0.00%
428.79
1.38%
Business Park
95.96
0.30%
2,249.26
7.11%
Industrial and Warehouse Distribution
253.92
0.80%
309.63
0.98%
Major Roads
686.31
2.17%
1,021.89
3.23%
Totals
31,629.42
100.110%
31,629.42 .
10000%
via PrieWs
1Wlis R Sc&rM'
Vs&ge 7t∎m~er
CLrate.du»rr
D.r Erwun
Orris Both
MSs well
fM Tajbr
c~faf~~
Tern Sn
DirrtYsr qi;. ~r
talnyn Midnd
!Tribe Wanly Di wmr
a:6qff
RECEIVED
VILLAGE OF HAMPSHIRE E
C
DEC 07 2004
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
.
Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-5000
Chicago, IL 60601
RE:
Docket No. R-04-021
Revisions to Radium Water Quality Standards
Dear Ms. Gunn :
The Village of Hampshire, Kane County, Illinois owns and operates a Public
Water Supply currently consisting of four deep sandstone wells (Wells No . 5, 6,
7 and 9). All of the existing wells exceed the current combined radium potable
water standard of 5.0 pCi/I. The Village of Hampshire has selected the cation_
exchange treatment process to remove the combined radium to below drinking
water standards from the deep sandstone wells. The Wells No. Sand 6 Water
Treatment Plant, the Well No. 7 Water Treatment Plant and the Well No . 9
Water Treatment Plant are currently In service.
The cation exchange treatment process requires that the cations, Including
radium, removed from the water during treatment be discharged to the sanitary
sewer system. The Village of Hampshire owns and operates a sanitary sewer
system and a wastewater treatment facility (WWTF). Since the WWTF
discharges to Hampshire Creek, an effluent dominated receiving stream, the
Village will likely have difficulty complying with the existing water quality
standard of 1 .0 pCi/I for radium 226. Enforcement of the overly restrictive water
quality standard could result In occasional or frequent violation and require
additional expenditure of public funds without an associated benefit to the public
or aquatic and riparian life associated with the stream . Therefore, the Village of
-Hampshire supports the approval of the proposal to implement revised water
quality standards for radium concentrations in the receiving stream
.
December 6, 2004
.
Ex+tI
I; z
Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn
December 6, 2004
Page 2
The Village of Hampshire appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to
the Illinois Pollution Control Board on this Important issue to our community
.
PC:
Bradley P. Sanderson, P.E .
Senior Project Manager
Engineering Enterprises, Inc
William P. Schmidt
Village President
Village of Hampshire
BPS/WPS/tpf
Mr. Chuck Anderson, Village Trustee
Atty. Mark Schuster, Village Attorney
Ms. Linda Vasquez, Village Clerk
Mr. John Bidinger, Supt Of Public Works
JKM, JWF - EEI
Q1WMWOW&Ten
yWarMF'k Ca**eGW1AtGX6apWAMj1jldoC
MAJOR AQUIFERS
PORTION OF HAMPSHIRE TOWNSHIP
February 2005
Legend
AMU tO
NOTE :
MAJOR AQUIFERS BASED ON AN ONGOING
STUDY BY THE ILLINOIS STATE WATER SURVEY
AND THE ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
exklr3IT
3
AQUIFER SENSITIVITY
PORTION OF HAMPSHIRE TOWNSHIP
February 2005
ExMf a, r 4.
Legend
=
A,
NOTE:
AQUIFER SENSITIVITY (PRELIMINARY) BASED ON AN
ONGOING STUDY BY THE ILLINOIS STATE WATER SURVEY
AND THE ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
C2
L2
