RECEIVED

BEFORE IHE ILLINOISPOLLUTION CONTROL BOABIERK'S OFFICE

Wesley Brazas, Jr.

)

FEB 2 1 2006

Petitioner

)

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Pollution Control Board

v .

)

PCB 06-131

Mr. Jeff Magnussen, President

)

(Appeal from IEPA decision

Village of Hampshire

)

granting modified NPDES permit)

and the

)

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency )

Respondents

)

NOTICE OF FILING

PLEASE take notice that on February 21, 2006, the undersigned filed with the Clerk of the

Illinois Pollution Control Board the attached

Amended Petition for Review of a Decision by the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

a

copy of which is hereby served upon you

.

Subscribed and Sworn to me this

21

day of

fet

o7-eo

(9

Notary Public

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, on oath state that I have served on the date of February 21, .2006, the

attached

Amended Petition for Review of a Decision by the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency

upon each person/agency to whom it is directed by placing a copy of same into

an

envelope correctly addressed as aforesaid and bearing sufficient first class postage prepaid, and

depositing same with the United States post Office before 5:00 p.m. on February 21,

,2006.

Mr. Jeff Magnussen, President

Division of Legal Counsel

Village of Hampshire

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

234 South State Street

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Hampshire, IL 60140

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

as, Jr.,

tea

"~1FFICIAL SEAL"

i%VANDA GEANES

Notary Public, State

llin

Comm

10 2006

My

ission

e

---

RECEIVED

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDCLERK'S

OFFICE

Wesley Brazas, Jr.

FEB 2 1 2006

Petitioner

)

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Pollution Control Board

v.

)

PCB 06-131

Mr. JeffMagnussen, President

)

(Appeal from IEPA decision

Village of Hampshire

)

granting modified NPDES permit)

and the

)

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

)

Respondents

)

AMENDED

PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION BY THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

Pursuant to the Order of the Board dated February 2, 2006 and 415 ILCS 5/40(e)(1) and

35 III.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. A copy of said modified permit and transmittal letter

is attached hereto as Exhibit 1

.

In support thereof, Petitioner states as follows

:

Petitioner

1 .

Petitioner timely served Respondents his original Petition for Review of a Decision by

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

.

A copy of said proof of service is attached as

Exhibit 2

.

2 .

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

Page 1 of 8

---

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 3 for issues

Petitioner raised before the IEPA

.

3

.

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

4 .

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 .

5

.

EMS services are delivered via State Street and the delivery of such services is severely

impacted by the flooding of State Street .

6 .

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

7 .

The Village of Hampshire is located in Kane County Illinois and is wholly within the

Chicago Ozone Non-attainment Area

.

Page 2 of 8

---

8 .

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 .

9 .

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

"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

.

10 .

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

.

11

.

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

.

12 .

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 the design maximum flows

Page 3 of 8

---

of the wastewater treatment plant have been approved by the IEPA. One such ordinance states in

pertinent part

:

"T he 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 :

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

.

. ."

13

.

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 4

.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

14 .

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 .

15 .

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

.

16 .

The IEPA is responsible for monitoring air quality and implementing the anti-degradation

and anti-backsliding requirements of the Clean Air Act

.

Page 4 of 8

---

17

.

IEPA's

duty to evaluate reasonably foreseeable and cumulative effects of this action is

stated CFR 1508 .7

:

mpacts 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

18 .

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 .

19 .

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

.

20 .

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

.

21

.

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 .

22

.

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 .

Page 5 of 8

---

Effluent Issues

23

.

Typical NPDES permits issued by IEPA state pollutant limits as Load Limits in lbs/day

and Concentration Limits in MG/L .

24 .

The Public Notice for 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 9

e'', unexplainably deviates from this formula. For a

Load Limit of 63 lbs/day for CBODS at a flow of 1 .5 mgd DAF, the Concentration Limit must

be 5.0 mg/I and not 10 mg/I as stated in the permit .

25 .

The [EPA 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

.

26 .

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

.

27 .

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

.

28 .

That [EPA 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

Page 6 of 8

---

29 .

The Village of Hampshire has not determined an adequate source of water to support the

wastewater treatment plant expansion to 1 .5 mgd DAF. The Village is studying alternatives to

its current reliance on the deep aquifers .

30 .

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 5

.

31

.

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 6 .

32.

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 DAF.

Clean Air Act

33

.

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

.

34 .

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

.

35 .

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 DAF

.

Page 7 of 8

---

36 .

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

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 raz

,

r .

W

Petitfo er

44W3

Big amber Road

Hampshire, IL 60140

Dated: Februaryl7, 2006

Page 8 of 8

---

1021

NORTH GRAND AVENUE EAST,

P.O. Box 19276,

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS

62794-9276-( 217) 782-3397

JAMES R. THOMPSON CENTER, 100 WEST RANDOLPH, SUITE

11-300, CHICAGO, IL 60601 -(312) 814-6026

217/782-0610

ROD R

.

BLAGOJEVICH, GOVERNOR

DOUGLAS

P. SCOTT,

DIRECTOR

_DEC..-0 9-_2005_

Village of Hampshire

234 South State Street

P.O. Box 457

Hampshire, IL 60140

Re:

Village of Hampshire

Hampshire Wastewater Facility Treatment

NPDES Permit No. IL0020281

Modification of NPDES Permit (After Public Notice)

Gentlemen:

.

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the request for modification of the

above-referenced NPDES Permit and issued a public notice based on that request . The final decision of the

Agency is to modify the Permit as follows :

This Modified NPDES Permit increases the facility's design average flow and design maximum flow upon

completion of the plant expansion but keeps the concentration limits and load limits at their current levels .

Enclosed is a copy of the modified Permit. You have the right to appeal this modification to the Illinois

Pollution Control Board within a 35 day period following the modification date shown on the first page of the

permit .

Should you have any question or comments regarding the above, please contact Gary Bingenheimer of my

staff

Sincerely,

& "

-

I-,

Alan Keller, P.E .

Manager, Permit Section

Division of Water Pollution Control

SAK:GWB:05042501.dlk

Attachment: Modified Permit

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

cc :

Records

Compliance Assurance Section

Des Plaines Region

USEPA

NIPC

Consultant

ROCKFORD-4302 North Main Street, Rockford, IL 61103-(815)987-7760

Des

PLANES-

9311 W. Harrison St., Des PI

.:

ELGIN- 595 South State, Elgin, IL 6012

3

-(847) 608-3131

PEORIA-5415 N. University St., Peoria, IL 616

BUREAU or Lwo

-

PtOPJA-

7620 N. University St., Peoria, IL 61614-(309) 693-5462

•

CHAViPAICN - 2125 South First Street, r.

A

• :

ene;IO.o -4500 5. Sixth Street Rd., Springfield, IL 62706 -(2t7) 786-6892

COLLMSVILLE-2009 Mall Street, Collin'

.

•

M,mRIoN -

2309 W. Main St., Suite 116, Marion, IL 62959-(618) 993-7200

PRtNTEn

ON

RECYCLED PAPER

&Wigs-`

I

1016 - (847) 294-4000

593-5463

IL 61820-(217) 278-5800

34 -(618) 346-5120

---

SAK:GWB:05042501 .dlk

In compliance with the provisions of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, Title 35 of the Ill . Adm. Code, Subtitle C, Chapter I, and

the Clean Water Act (CWA), the above-named Permittee is hereby authorized to discharge at the above location to the above-named

receiving stream in accordance with the standard conditions and attachments herein

.

Permittee is not authorized to discharge after the above expiration date. In order to receive authorization to discharge beyond the

expiration date, the Permittee shall submit the proper application as required by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ([EPA)

not later than 180 days prior to the expiration date .

A

wl~

QL~'_

Alan Keller, P.E .

Manager, Permit Section

Division of Water Pollution Control

NPDES Permit No. IL0020281

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Division

of

Water Pollution Control

1021

North Grand Avenue East

Post Office Box

19276

Springfield, Illinois

62794-9276

NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM

Modified (NPDES) Permit

Expiration Date: July

31, 2009

Issue Date: July

21, 2004

Effective Date: August 1,

2004

Modification

.Date :

December 9,

2005

Name and Address of Permittee :

Village of Hampshire

234

South State Street

P.O. Box

457

Hampshire, IL

60140

Receiving Waters: Hampshire Creek

Facility Name and Address:

Hampshire Wastewater Facility Treatment

350

Mill Street

Hampshire, Illinois

(Kane County)

---

*Load limits based on design maximum flow shall apply only when flow exceeds design average flow

.

**Carbonaceous BODS (CBODS ) testing shall be in accordance with 40 CFR 136

.

***See Special Condition 14

.

*'"Phosphorous shall be reported on the DMR as a monthly average for monitoring purposes only.

`****Recording, Indicating, Totalizing

Flow shall be reported on the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) as monthly average and daily maximum

.

Fecal Coliform shall be reported on the DMR as daily maximum .

pH shall be reported on the DMR as a minimum and a maximum

.

Dissolved oxygen shall be reported on DMR as minimum

.

Page 2

Modification Date: December 9, 2005

NPDES Permit No. IL0020281

Effluent Limitations, Monitoring, and Reoortinq

FINAL

Discharge Number(s) and Name(s): 001 STP Outfall

Load limits computed based on a design average flow (DAF) of 0 .75 MGD (design maximum flow (DMF) of 1 .88 MGD) .

Excess flow facilities (if applicable) shall not be utilized until the main treatment facility is receiving its maximum practical flow

.

From the modification date of this Permit until the plant expansion is operational, the effluent of the above discharge(s) shall be

monitored and limited at all times as follows

:

LOAD LIMITS lbs/day

DAF (DMF)*

CONCENTRATION

LIMITS MG/L

Parameter

Flow (MGD)

CBODS**

Monthly

Average

63(157)

Weekly

Average

Daily

Maximum

125 (314)

Monthly

Average

10

Weekly

Average

Daily

Maximum

20

Sample

Frequency

Continuous

2 Days/Week

Sample

Type

*****RIT

Composite

Suspended Solids

75(188)

150 (376)

12

24

2 DaysNVeek

Composite

Dissolved Oxygen***

pH

Fecal Coliform

Ammonia Nitrogen

as(N)

March-May/Sept.-Oct .

Report

2 DaysNVeek

2 Days/Week

2 Days/Week

2 Days/Week

Grab

Grab

Grab

Composite

Shall be in the range of 6 to 9 Standard Units

Daily Maximum shall not exceed 400 per 100 mL (May through October)

9.4(24)

34(85)

1 .5

5.4

June-August

9.4(24)

24(60)

34(85)

1 .5

3.8

5.4

2 Days/Week

Composite

Nov: Feb .

11(28)

33(82)

1 .8

5.2

2 Days/Week

Composite

Phosphorous`***

2 Days/Week

Composite

---

Page 3

Modification Date: December 9, 2005

NPDES Permit No. IL0020281

Effluent Limitations, Monitorinq, and Reoortinq

FINAL

Discharge Number(s) and Name(s): 001 STP Outfall

Load limits computed based on a design average flow (DAF) of 1 .5 MGD (design maximum flow (DMF) of 4.17 MGD) .

Excess flow facilities (if applicable) shall not be utilized until the main treatment facility is receiving its maximum practical flow

.

From the completion of the plant expansion until the expiration date, the effluent of the above discharge(s) shall be monitored and

limited at all times as follows:

*Load limits based on design maximum flow shall apply only when flow exceeds design average flow

.

**Carbonaceous BOD5(CBOD5) testing shall be in accordance with 40 CFR 136 .

***Recording, Indicating, Totalizing

Flow shall be reported on the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) as monthly average and daily maximum .

Fecal Coliform shall be reported on the DMR as daily maximum .

pH shall be reported on the DMR as a minimum and a maximum .

Dissolved oxygen shall be reported on DMR as minimum .

LOAD LIMITS lbs/day

CONCENTRATION

DAF (DMF)*

LIMITS MG/L

Parameter

Monthly

Weekly

Average

Average

Daily

Monthly

Weekly

Daily

Maximum

Average

Average Maximum

Sample

Frequency

Sample

Type

Flow (MGD)

Continuous

RIT'**

CBOD 5**

63(157)

125 (314)

10

20

3 Days/Week

Composite

Suspended Solids

75(188)

150 (376)

12

24

3 Days/Week

Composite

Dissolved Oxygen

Shall not be less than 6 mg/L

3 Days/Week

Grab

pH

Shall be in the range of 6 to 9 Standard Units

3 Days/Week

Grab

Fecal Coliform

Daily Maximum shall not exceed 400 per 100 mL (May through October)

3 Days/Week

Grab

Ammonia Nitrogen

as (N)

March-May/Sept.-Oct .

3 Days/Week

Composite

9 .4 (24)

34 (85)

1 .5

5.4

June-August

9.4 (24)

24 (60)

34(85)

1 .5

3.8

5.4

3 Days/Week

Composite

Nova Feb .

11 (28)

33 (82)

1 .8

5.2

3 Days/Week

Composite

Phosphorous

13(35)

1 .0

3 Days/Week

Composite

---

Influent samples shall be taken at a point representative of the influent

.

Flow (MGD) shall be reported on the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) as monthly average and daily maximum

.

GODS and Suspended Solids shall be reported on the DMR as a monthly average concentration

.

*Recording, Indicating, Totalizing

.

**Upon completion of the plant expansion influent monitoring shall be performed 3 Days/Week

.

Page 4

Modification Date: December 9, 2005

NPDES Permit No. IL0020281

Influent Monitorinq, and Reportinq

The influent to the plant shall be monitored as follows

:

Parameter

Sample Frequency

Sample Type

Flow (MGD)

Continuous

RIT*

GODS

2 Days/Week**

Composite

Suspended Solids

2 Days/Week**

Composite

---

Page'S

Modification Date: December 9, 2005

NPDES Permit No. IL0020281

Special Conditions

SPECIAL CONDITION 1

.

This Permit may be modified to include different final effluent limitations or requirements which are

consistent with applicable laws, regulations, or judicial orders . The IEPA will public notice the permit modification

.

SPECIAL CONDITION 2

.

The use or operation of the current facility shall be by or under the supervision of a Certified Class 2

operator. The use or operation of the facility upon completion of the plant expansion shall be by or under the supervision of a Certified

Class 1 operator.

SPECIAL CONDITION 3.

The IEPA may request in writing submittal of operational information in a specified form and at a required

frequency at any time during the effective period of this Permit .

SPECIAL CONDITION 4. The IEPA may request more frequent monitoring by permit modification pursuant to 40 CFR § 122 .63 and

Without Public Notice in the event of operational, maintenance or other problems resulting in possible effluent deterioration

.

SPECIAL CONDITION 5.

The effluent, alone or in combination with other sources, shall not cause

a

violation of any applicable water

quality standard outlined in 35 III. Adm. Code 302 .

SPECIAL CONDITION 6.

Samples taken in compliance with the effluent monitoring requirements shall be taken at a point

representative of the discharge, but prior to entry into the receiving stream

.

SPECIAL CONDITION 7. This Permit maybe modified to include requirements for the Permittee on a continuing basis to evaluate and

detail its efforts to effectively control sources of infiltration and inflow into the sewer system and to submit reports to the IEPA

if

necessary .

SPECIAL CONDITION 8 . For Discharge No. 001, any use

of

chlorine to control slime growths, odors or as an operational control, etc . shall

not exceed the limit of 0.05 mg/L (daily maximum) total residual chlorine in the effluent. Sampling is required on a daily grab basis during

the chlorination process. Reporting shall be submitted on the DMR's on a monthly basis .

SPECIAL CONDITION 9

.

Upon completion of the plant expansion the Permittee shall monitor the effluent and report concentrations (in

mg/L) of the following listed parameters eighteen (18) months prior to the expiration date and again at twelve (12) months prior to the

expiration date. The sample shall be a 24-hour effluent composite except as otherwise specifically provided below and the results shall

be submittedon Discharge Monitoring Report Forms to IEPA unless otherwise specified by the IEPA. The parameters to be sampled and

the minimum detection limits to be attained are as follows

:

Unless otherwise indicated, concentrations refer to the total amount of the constituent present in all phases, whether solid, suspended or

dissolved, elemental or combined, including all oxidation states

.

't0 ng/L = 1 part per trillion .

STORET

CODE

PARAMETER

Minimum

detection limit

01002

Arsenic

0.05.mg/L

01007

Barium

0.5 mg/L

01027

Cadmium

0.001 mg/L

01032

Chromium (hexavalent) (grab)

0.01 mg/L

01034

Chromium (total)

0.05 mg/L

01042

Copper

0.005 mg/L

00718

Cyanide (grab) (weak acid dissociable)

5.0 ug/L

00720

Cyanide (grab not to exceed 24 hours) (total)

5.0 ug/L

00951

Fluoride

0.1 mgIL

01045

Iron (total)

0.5 mg/L

01046

Iron (Dissolved)

0.5 mg/L

01051

Lead

0.05 mg/L

01055

Manganese

0.5 mg/L

71900

Mercury (grab) (using USEPA Method 1631 or equivalent)

1 .0 ng/L*

01067

Nickel

0.005 mg/L

00556

Oil (hexane soluble or equivalent) (Grab Sample only)

5.0 mg/L

32730

Phenols (grab)

0.005 mg/L

01147

Selenium

0.005 mg/L

01077

Silver (total)

0.003 mg/L

01092

Zinc

0.025 mg/L

---

Page 6

Modification Date: December 9, 2005

NPDES Permit No. IL0020281

Special Conditions

SPECIAL CONDITION 10 .

During January of each year the Permittee shall submit annual fiscal data regarding sewerage system

operatio_ns.to_the .Illinois Environmental Protection -Agency/Division of Water Pollution Control/Compliance Assurance Section . The

Permittee may use any fiscal

year

period provided the period ends within twelve (12) months of the submission date

.

Submission shall be on forms provided by IEPA titled "Fiscal Report Form For NPDES Permittees"

.

SPECIAL CONDITION 11 . Upon completion of the plant expansion the Permittee shall conduct biomonitoring of the effluent from Discharge

Number(s) 001 as follows .

Biomonitoring

1

.

Acute Toxicity - Standard definitive acute toxicity tests shall be run on at least two trophic levels of aquatic species (fish,

invertebrate) representative of the aquatic community of the receiving stream . Testing must be consistent with Methods for

Measuring theAcute Toxicity of Effluentsand Receiving Waters to Freshwaterand MarineOrganisms (Fifth Ed .) EPA/821-R-02-012

Unless substitute tests are pre-approved; the following tests are required :

a .

Fish - 96 hour static LC, Bioassay using fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) .

b .

Invertebrate 48-hour static LC50 Bioassay using Ceriodaphnia

.

2 .

Testing Frequency - The above tests shall be conducted using 24-hour composite samples unless otherwise authorized by the IEPA

.

Samples must be collected in the 18th, 15th, 12th, and 9th month prior to the expiration date of this Permit

.

3 .

Reporting - Results shall be reported according to EPA/821-R-02-012, Section 12, Report Preparation, and shall be submitted to

IEPA, Bureau of Water, Compliance Assurance Section within one week of receipt from the laboratory. Reports are due to the IEPA

no later than the 16th, 13th, 10th, and 7th month prior to the expiration date of this Permit .

4 .

Toxicity Reduction Evaluation - Should the results of the biomonitoring program identify toxicity, the IEPA may require that the

Permittee prepare a plan fortoxicity reduction evaluation and identification . This plan shall be developed in accordance with Toxicity

Reduction EvaluationGuidance for MunicipalWastewater Treatment Plants EPA/833B-99/002, and shall include an evaluation to

determine which chemicals have a potential for being discharged in the plant wastewater,

a

monitoring program to determine their

presence or absence and to identify other compounds which are not being removed by treatment, and other measures as

appropriate. The Permittee shall submit to the IEPA its plan for toxicity reduction evaluation within ninety (90) days following

notification by the IEPA. The Permittee shall implement the plan within ninety (90) days or other such date as contained in a

notification letter received

from

the IEPA .

The IEPA may modify this Permit during its term to incorporate additional requirements or limitations based on the results of the

biomonitoring. In addition, after review of the monitoring results, the IEPA may modify this Permit to include numerical limitations

for specific toxic pollutants. Modifications under this condition shall follow public notice and opportunity for hearing

.

SPECIAL CONDITION 12

.

For the duration of this Permit, the Permittee shall determine the quantity of sludge produced by the treatment

facility in dry tons or gallons with average percent total solids analysis . The Permittee shall maintain adequate records of the quantities

of sludge produced and have said records available for IEPA inspection . The Permittee shall submit to the IEPA, at a minimum, a semi-

annual summary report of the quantities of sludge generated and disposed of, in units of dry tons or gallons (average total percent solids)

by different disposal methods including but not limited to application on farmland, application on reclamation land, landfilling, public

distribution, dedicated land disposal, sod farms, storage lagoons or any other specified disposal method

. Said reports shall be submitted

to the IEPA by January 31 and July 31 of each year reporting the preceding January thru June and July thru December interval of sludge

disposal operations .

Duty to Mitigate. The Permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any sludge use or disposal in violation of this Permit .

Sludge monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved under 40 CFR 136 unless otherwise specified in 40 CFR

503, unless other test procedures have been specified in this Permit

.

Planned Changes. The Permittee shall give notice to the IEPA on the semi-annual report of any chacc s'n sludge use and disposal

.

The Pennittee shall retain records of all sludge monitoring, and reports required by the Sludge Permit as

nced in Standard Condition

23 for a period of at least five (5) years from the date of this Permit

.

If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by the Sludge Permit, the results

monitoring shall be included

In Me . eporting of data submitted to the IEPA

.

---

Page 7

Modification Date: December 9, 2005

NPDES Permit No. IL0020281

Special Conditions

Monitoring reports for sludge shall be reported on the form titled "Sludge Management Reports" to the following address

:

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Bureau of Water

Compliance Assurance Section

Mail Code #19

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Post Office Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

SPECIAL CONDITION 13 . The Permittee shall record monitoring results on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Forms using one such

form for each outfall each month .

In the event that an outfall does not discharge during a monthly reporting period, the DMR Form shall be submitted with no discharge

indicated .

The Pemrittee may choose to submit electronic DMRs (eDMRs) instead of mailing paper DMRs to the IEPA . More information, including

registration information for the eDMR program, can be obtained on the IEPA website, http://www.epa.state .il.us/water/edmr/index.html .

The completed Discharge Monitoring Report forms shall be submitted to IEPA no later than the 15th day of the following month, unless

otherwise specified by the permitting authority .

Permittees not using eDMRs shall mail Discharge Monitoring Reports with an original signature to the IEPA at the following address

:

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Water Pollution Control

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Post Office Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

Attention: Compliance Assurance Section, Mail Code # 19

SPECIAL CONDITION 14 .

Project Description: Compliance with Dissolved Oxygen Water Quality Standards

On May 1, 2006 or upon completion of the plant expansion, whichever comes first, the following dissolved oxygen limits shall become

effective :

Concentration

Limits mq/L

Jan. through Dec.

Shall not be less than 6

The Permittee shall complete the project described above in accordance with the following schedule:

(1)

Interim Report on dissolved oxygen sampling to date and

Completed

what measures are necessary to comply with final

dissolved oxygen limitations

(2)

Preliminary Report on construction of dissolved oxygen

May 1, 2005

compliance facilities

(3)

Plans and specifications

August 1, 2005

(4)

Commence Construction

November 1, 2005

(5)

Interim Report

February 1, 2006

(6)

Permittee Achieves Compliance with Final

May 1, 2006

D!ssolved Ox

.;ren Effluent Limitations

---

Page 8

NPDES Permit No. IL0020281

Special Conditions

This Permit may be modified, with Public Notice, to include revised compliance dates set out in this Permit that are superseded or

supplemented by compliance dates in judicial orders, Pollution Control Board orders or grant agreements. Prior to suchh permit modification,

the revised dates in the appropriate orders or grant agreements shall govem the Permittee's compliance .

The dissolved oxygen limits in this Permit are based on the Illinois Pollution Control Board Regulations contained in 35 Ill

. Adm. Code Part

302.206. Should these regulations change, the IEPA may re-open and modify this Permit to eliminate or revise dissolved oxygen limitations

based on the revised regulations. Prior to the dissolved oxygen limits becoming effective, such revised limits may be either more or less

stringent than those above. After the dissolved oxygen limits become effective, such revised limits shall be subject to the requirements of

40 CFR § 122.44(1) .

In addition, the IEPA may initiate a modification of the construction schedule set forth in this Permit at any time, to include other dates which

are necessary to carry out the provisions

of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, the Federal Clean Water Act or regulations

promulgated under those Acts or compliance dates which have been submitted in writing by the Permittee and approved by the IEPA .

Public Notice of such modifications and opportunity for public hearing shall be provided consistent with 40 CFR §122.63 .

REPORTING

The Per mittee shall submit a report no later than fourteen (14) days following the completion dates indicated for each numbered item in

the compliance schedule, indicating, a) the date the item was completed, or b) that the item was not completed . All reports shall be

submitted to ]EPA at the following address

:

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Water Pollution Control

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Post Office box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

Attention: Compliance Assurance Section, Mail Code # 19

SPECIAL CONDITION 15

. The Per mittee shall notify the IEPA in writing once the treatment plant expansion has been completed . A letter

stating the date that the expansion was completed shall be sent to the following address within fourteen (14) days of the expansion

becoming operational

:

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Bureau of Water

Compliance Assurance Section, Mail Code #19

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Post Office Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

Modification Date: December 9, 2005

---

ATTACHMENT H

Standard Conditions

Definitions

Act means the Illinois Environmental Protection Act. Ch. 111 1/2111. Rev. Slat., Sec 1001-

1052 as Amended.

(7)

Property rights. This permit does not convoy any property rights of any sort or

Agency means the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

.

any exclusive privilogo .

(81

Duty to provide Information . The permitted shall

furnish

to the Agency within a

reasonable time, any information which the Agency may request to determine

-Clean Water Act (formerly referred to as the Federal-Water Pollution Control Act) moans

-

-whether..us. exists for modifying-revoking-end mreading, or terminating this

puts L 92-500. as amended. 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq,

permit or to determine Compliance with the

.car

ds.

The

o

b

he

ee hall also

furnish to the Agency, upon request "&a of records required

ed

ed

t

to

kept

pt

b

by this

NPDES (Notional Factotum anElmion

o) mans the national program for

portrait

d miani su

an

i

imposing and enforcing

mucking and

requirements,

srag,

,

under Sections

s

4 2

purples, and

the Clean

and eaternng pretreatment

nt req

i

quire

mi

rementts, unden

der Secections

3

307,

7, 4001. 3l88 add 405

of

of the

Water Act.

Board means the Illinois Pollution Control Board

USEPA means the United States Environmental Protection Agency

.

Badly Oitetwge means the discharge of a pollutant measured Coding a calendar day or any

24-flour period that reasonably represents the calendar day for purposes of sampling. For

pollutants with limitations expressed in units of mess. the "daily discharge' Is calculated as

the total mass of the pollutant discharged over the day . For pollutants with limitations

expressed in other units of measurements, the "daily discharge' is calculated as the average

measurement of the pollutant Over the day

Maximum Daily Discharge Limitation (daily maximum) means the highest allowable defy

discharge .

Average Monthly Discharge Limttatkn (30 day average) means the highest allowable

average of dally discharges over a calendar month, calculated as the cum of all daily

discharges measured during a calendar month divided by the number of daily discharges

measured during that month.

Average Weekly Discharge Limitation (7 day average) means the highest allowable

evengaof dally discharges

over

a calendar week . calculated as the sum of all daily discharges

measured during a calendar week divided by the number of daily discharges measured during

the: weak .

Beat Management Precttces IBMPa means schedules of activities, prohibitions of

practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the

pogution of waters of the $tate. BMPe also

Include

treatment regtiren ants. operating

pocedues. and practices to control plant

she

runoff, spillage or teaks, sludge or waste

disposal, or drainage from raw material storage

.

Aliquot means a sample of specified volume used to make up a total Composite sample .

Grab Sample means an individual sample of at bast 100 milliliters collected at a randomly-

sekcted time aver a period not exceeding 15 minutes

.

24 Hats, Composite Sample means a combination of at bast 8 sample aliquots of at least

I (X0 miMiters, collected at periodic Intervals Adding the operating hours of a mollify over a 24-

Iwur period.

8 their Composite Sample means a combination of at mast 3 sample atquotsof at bast 100

rni That

, collected at periodic hrarvala during the operating hums; of a faagtyover an a-hour

period.

Flow Propartlonal Composite Sample means a combination of sample aliquots of at least

1 W milliliters collected at periodic intervals such that either the time

interval

between each

aliquot a the volume of each aliquot b

proportional

to ether the stream flow at the time of

sampling a Me total stream flow since Me collection of the previous aliquot

(1)

Duty to comply. The permittee must Comply with all conditions of this permit

Any permit nonwmptance constitutes a violation of the

Act

and is grounds for

enforcement acdo, permit ter mnation, revocation and raiatusnce. modlficadot,

or for normal of a permit renewal applleatlon The parnltma shed comply with

affluent standards or

prohibitions

eatabiished under Section 307W of the Clean

Water Act far toxic pollutants within the time provided in the regulations that

establish these standards a pohibiins, even if the poorest has not yet been

modified to incorporate the regmsletrment

(2)

Duty

m

metal If the permttme wishes to tondo. an activity regulated by this

permit after the expiration date of this pema, the permitttse must app* far and

obtain a new permit 8 the permitted submits

a proper

app cation as required by

the Agency no later then 180 days prior to the expiration date, that marth often

continue in full force and affect until the final Agency d .dion on Me application

has been made.

13)

Need to halt a reduce activity not a defense. It shall rot be a defense fat a

permitte in an enforcement action that it would have beam necessary to "it a

reduce the permitted activity in order to mammin compliance with the conditions

of

this

permit

.

t4)

Duty to mitigate. The pertnittee shah Cake all reasonable steps to minimize a

prevent any discharge in violation of this permit which hers anwasawasable Rounded

of adversely effecting human health or the environment

(5)

Proper operation and maintenance. The permitttede sties at as times property

Operate and mainain all fecdilies and systems of reatment and Control (and

related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the pe mittee to achieve

compliance with the conditions of Mis permit. Proper operation and maintenance

includes

aimttive

paiormance, adequate funding . adequate operator staffing end

training, and adequate laboratory and process Commit. including appropriate

quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the opemgon of back-up, or

.uxili':ry facilities,

or

similar systems

only

when aeaeaary

m

achieve

compliance with the conditions of the permit .

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

(6)

Pomaltactions . This permit may be rroofifiahd, Anvoked and ressuned, or omainated

for cause by the Agency pursuant to4O CFA 122 .62. The filing of a request by the

permittede for a permit modification, revocation and feissuence, or termination, or e

notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance, does not stay any

pointed condition .

(9)

Inspection and entry. The permittee shall allow an authorized representative of

thus Agency, upon the presentation of credentials and other docurtunts as may be

required by law, to :

bl

Enter upon Me permittee's premises whew a regulated facility or activity is

located or conducted, or where records must be kept under the conditions

of this permil;

(b)

Have access to andcopy.

a treasonable times, any records that must be

kept under the conditions of due permit :

Inspect at reasonable times ant facilities, equipment (including monitoring

and Annual equipmend, practices. or operations regulated or required

under this permit ; and

'

•

Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purpose of assuring permit

Compliance, or

As

otherwise authorized by the Act any substances o

parameters at any location .

(10) Monitoring and records.

W

Samples end measurements taken for the purpose of monitoring shall be

representative of the, monitored activity.

()

The permittee shall mtam record. of ell monitoring informat on, including

all calibration and maintenance records, and al original strip chart

recordings for Continuous monitoring instrumentatd, copies of ail reports

required by this penult end records of 84 dam used to complete the

application for this permit for a period of at least 3 yearn from the dam of

this permit measuren,ent report a application This period may be

extended by request of the Agency at any time .

•

Records of monitoring Information shall include:

(1)

The dam. exact place, and time of sampling a measurements

;

(2)

The individwi(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;

(3)

The dau(,) a.hges were performed

;

(4)

The individuals) wind performed the analyses;

(5)

The Analytical tachaques or methods used; anti

(6)

The moults of ouch analyses.

•

-

Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved

under 40 CFR Part 136, unless other test procedures heve been specified

in this permit. Where no test procedure under 40 CFR Part 130 his been

approved, the pemlittee most submit to the Agency a test method far

approval. The permittede shall calibrate and perform maintenance

procedures on all monitoring and analytical inebumMtetion at Intervals u

ensure accuracy of measurements.

(11) Signatory requirement Alt application,, reports a Information submitted for the

Agency shall be signed and certified .

•

Application All permit applications shall be signed as leaders

:

(1)

Fo a corporation: by a principal executive offices of at least the

level of vice president or a person or position having overadl

responsibility for environmental matter, for the corporation ;

(2)

Few a

partnership

a

ands, proprietorship : by a general

partner a

the poprietor, reapectivay

; or

(3)

For a nanidpaliy, State, Federal, a other public agency : by

either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official

(hi

Reports. All reports required by permits, or other 'mfo,mation requested by

the Agency shag be signed by a person described in paragraph

le)

o by a

duty authorized representative of that parson. A particle is aduly authorized

representative only it:

(1)

The authorization is mode in writing by a person inscribed in

paragraph W; and

(2)

The authorization specifies either an individual a a position

responsible for the overall operation of the facility, from which the

discharge originates, such as a plant manager, superintendent

or

parson of equivalent reaiponabiuty; and

131

The written authorization is submitted to the Agency.

---

(C)

Changes of Authorization

.

If en

authorization under

(b) is no longer

accurate because a different individual or position has responsibility for the

overall operation of the facility. a new authoization satisfying the

requirements of gal must be submitted to the Agency prior to or together

with any reports-infonpetion,

or applications to beagnad byan authorized

representative .

f3)

Five 4S) times the maximum concaa rston value reported far that

'pollutant in the NPDES permit application; or

1121 Reporting requkements.

14)

The level established by the Agency in this permit

a)

Plenned changes Thre permitlee shall give notice to the Agency as soon

as possible of any planned physical alterations or additions to the

(b)

That they have begun or expect to begin to use or manufacture as an

""

-

.

..

-yermilteoTacrhly

Jnernedate or final productorbyproduct any toxic pollutant which was

"

_

-. . ..

.__ _

_

. .

.

.

not reported a the NPDES inal application

(h)

Anticipated noncompliance. The ,ormitteo shall give advance notice to

me Agency of any planned changes in the permitted fectity

or activity

which may mouth in no compliance with permit requirements

(c)

Compliance sohedules. Reports of compliance or noncompliance with or

any progress reports on, interim end final requirements contained in any

compliance schedule of this permit shall be submitted no later man 14

days following each achedule data .

Id)

Monhaing reports. Monitoring results shelf be reported at the intervals

specified elsewhere in this permit.

(1)

Monitoring

results must be reported on a Discharge Monitoring

Report IDMR).

(2)

If the perminee monitors any pollutant more frequarW than

required by the permit using test procedures approved under 40

CFR 138 or as specified in the permit the results of this monitoring

shall be included

In the calculation and reporting of the date

submitted in the DMR .

13) Calculations for all limitations which

require averaging of

measurements shall utilize an arithmetic mean unless,

otherwise

specified by the Agency in the permit

is)

Twenty-four hour reporting .

The IetmRtee shelf report any

noncompliance which may endanger health or the

emiroenent Any

information shall be prevailed orally within 24 hours from the time the

pwminpe becanm aware of theehwmsances A written submission shall

also be provided wither 5 days of the lime thepermitW become"

aware of

the ckeumsances The written subntession shag contain s description of

the noncompliance and its cause; the period of Iemconrtptarxm,

including

exact dates and tames ; and if the noncompliance has not been corrected.

the anticipated time it is expected to continue; end owns twere or planned

to reduce, elndnate, and prevent reoccurrence of me noncompliance.The

following shall be included as information which must bereported within

24 hours :

(1)

Any unantic

ipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation in

the permit;

.

(2)

Violation of a maximum daily discharge limitation for any of the

pollutants listed by the Agency in the permit to he reported within

24 hours;

The Agency may waive the written report on a case-W-use tests 0 the

oral report has been received within 24 hours

.

(f)

Other noncompliance. The Overseas

shall report aN instances of

noncompliance not reported under paragraphs (12)W. W. orW. at the

time monitoring report are submitted . The reports shah cantata the

information listed in paragraph (121(e).

(9)

Other information Where the permittee becomes aware that it failed to

submit any me ,

an faces in a permit application or svbndtted incorrect

information e a permit eOficinion or Inant report a the Agency. it shat

promptly submit such facts or information

(13) Transfer of permit . A permit may he

automatically transferred to

. new

permiteo if :

(a)

The current permutes notifies the Agency et east 30 days in advance of

the proposed transfer date;

let

The ounce includes a written agreement between the treating and now

permatees containing a specific date fur transfer of parent hospasisiNfitV.

coverage and la5ility between thecurrent and new prmittees ; and

Ic)

The Agency does not notify the existing permitea and the proposed new

permitee of its intent to modify or evoke and reissue the, permit

. If this

notice is not recawed, the transfer is effective on the date specifieda the

agreement.

1141 All manufacturing. commercial, mining, and silvicultural dislagers must notify

Use Agency as soon as they know or have reason to believe

:

el

That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in the

discharge of any toxic Pollutant identified under Settle 307 of the Clean

Water Act which is not limited in the permit, if that dedherge will exceed

the highest of the following notification levels :

(1)

One hundred micrograms per liter (100 ug/0

:

12)

Two hundred micrograms per liter (200

u0/5

for acrobin and

ecryknitrib; five hundred micrograms per Titer 1500 ugll) for 2 .4 .

dinitroPhnol and for 2-methyl-4,8-0inivaphenoi ; and one milligram

Or (err (I mg/I) for antimony ;

115) All Pubkcly Owned Treatment Works IPOTW5) must prov'We adequate notice to

the Agency of the following;

a)

Any new introduction of pollutants into that POTW from an Wheat

discharges which would be subject to Sections 301 or 306 of the Clean

Water Act If it ware directly discharging those pollutants ; and

(b)

Am substantial change In the volume or character of popular, being

introduced into the POTW by a source introducing pollutants

into the

POTW et tie time of issuance of the permit

W

For purposes of this paragraph adequate notice shall include information

on 0) the quality and quantity of effluent introduced into to POT W, and Iii)

any anticipated impact of the change on the quantity orquality of affluent

to be discharged from the POTW.

(16) R the pemlh b issued a a pub5dy owned a publicly roguated treatment works .

the parmhee shall require any Industrial user of such treatment works

to comply

with federal requuemonte corcemIng

:

(1)

User charges pursuant to Section 204(b) of the Clean Wow Act

and

applicable regulations spending in 40 CFR 35

:

(2)

Toxic potutanteffluentstandards andpntreabnenlstandard, Wnuantto

Section 307 of the Clean Wow, Act; en d

(3)

Inspection, monitoring and envy pursuant to Section 308 of

the Clean

Water Act

(17) If an applicable standard o, inhibition W proarmilgirad! tander, Sactiont 301(b)(2)IC)

end l

, 304@1121, a 30714(2) and bet effluent standard or limitation Is mores

stringent then any effunm fimilat on a the Pam" or controls a polehnt not

misted in the permit,

to permit shelf be promptly modified

or revoked, end

reissued to conform to that affluent standard or limitations,

119) Any aut orizat on to coaatnct issued a the Permhae pursuant to 36 Nt Adm.

Code 309.164 is hereby incorporated by reference se a Condition of this permit

(19) The perrnlttee ahall not make any fatee statement representation or certification in

any application reread, report, plan mother document submitted to the Agency or

the USEPA, a required to be maintained motor this permit

(2W The Clean Water Act provides dot any person who violates aperrrtIt condition

essential

ngSeetiom301,302.306,307,305,318,x4050/theCleanWater

Act Is subject to a CNN penalty notaexceed

$

10,000 paday of such violation .

Any pmaon who willfully or negligently violates permit conditkpe Implementing

Sections 301 . 302, 308, 307. Or 308 of the Clean Water Act bsubjxt toe fine

of not less than $2,500, rear non then $25.000 per day of vioaton, or by

imprisanent fair not more than on, year, or both

121) The Clean Wow Act provides tat my person who falsifies, tampers with, or

knowingly renders Inaccurate any monitoring device or method required to be

maintained under permit shat upon conviction, bepunished by a like of not more

Ban $10,000 per violation orbyimprisonment far not more than 8 months per

violation. or by both

122) The Clean Water Act provides that any person who knowingly makes any fit..

statement representation or ca tilkat on In any record or other document

submitted or

required to be meaained under this parent shat. including

monitoring reports or reports of comparee or non-compliance she% upon

conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10 .000 per violation . or by

krerboamnt far not non then 6 months per violation or by both

(23) Collected earearelegi thernions. sludgiro, small Other solids shagbe disposed of in such

a mariner a. to prevent entry of these wastes for runoff from to wastes) into

waters of the Stan. The proper authorization for such disposal shell be obtained

from the Agency end is Insertionan6 r part hereof by reference

.

(24) M case of conflict between these standard conditions end any Center

conedidont,11

included in this permit the other con itkna) shall govern.

(25) The pemettae shall Comply with, in additiona the requirements of the N ormal, an

applicable provisions of 35 I% Adm. Cods, Subtitle C. Suburb 0. Subtitle E, end all

applicable orders of the Board

126) The provisions o1 this permit are severeble, and if any provision of this permit a

the

application of. any provision of then permit b held invalid,

to remaining

provisions of this permit sham continua in fut force end affect

111 12.1-88)

---

CLERK'S OFFICE

JAM 1 3 2036

PROOF OF

SERVICE

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Pollution Control Board

the undersigned, on oath state that I have served on the date of January 13, 2006, the

attachedPetitionforReview of

aDecision-bytheIllinois- nrromnentalProtection Agency

upon

each person/agency to whom it is directed by placing a copy of same into an envelope correctly

addressed as aforesaid and bearing sufficient first class postage prepaid, and depositing same

with the United States Post Office before 5:00 p.m. on January 13, 2005 .

Mr. Jeff Magnussen, President

Village of Hampshire

234 South State Street

Hampshire, IL 60140

Sub

bed andySwom to me this

1

dayof

alt"t

otaiy Public

Page 1 of 1

Division of Legal

Conmsel

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

OFFICIAL SEAL

%

DECOM A-

P?~i.

,

U

STAff

l

,comrnwom

mar

a

2009

E- RIrDIT

2

---

Wesley, J. B e, Jr., P.E.

44W331 BigTimber Road

Hampshire, Illinois 60140

October l_1,-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 ofHampshire 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 :

•

Knowingerrors 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

Kme 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 insetting effluent discharge limits .

•

Proposed concentration limits must be cut in half to correspond to required mass

limits.

•

Errors in IEPA's procedures far 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 .

k.xutg\o *3

---

IEPA Draft NPDES IL 0020281

October 11, 2005

Page 2 of 8

_Errors ofMaterial Fact 0 Applicant, the Village ofHampshire

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)(lXC)(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 Stornnwater 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

Kishwankee River cannot accept the additional flow." Hampshire's refusal to police itself and

comply with the provisions of the

Karma 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 Comity Stormwater

Ordinance by

providing compensating

detention to not increase stream flows, or by other means

.

Failure to

Disclose

the "Real-PopulationServed

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." En. 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 SW Erpansion

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 overnvning 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 parkinglots 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 A8 .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 Finmrcial 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 Stornnvater

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

---

JEPA Draft NPDES 1L 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 Proposed by 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 Clot 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 nugt1 x Design Flow, mgd x 8 .34 conversion War =

Mass, lbs/day

Using CBODS as an example, a concentration limit of 10 mg/l 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 con entidfion, e.g. "No effluent discharged to the Lake Michigan basin shall exceed 4

mg/L of BODs or 5 mg&L of suspended solids."'°"

I have not found any regulations using mass

based units as the primary method to couuol discharges. I have verified the concentration limits

convert exactly to mass units in over

two

dozen NPDES permits currently pending before IEPA,

EXCEPT FORHAMPSHIRE"

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/1 at DMF-

-4.17 mgd :

Mass Load Limits, Ibslday

Concentration Load Limits, mgfl

Parameter

Mo. Av.

WeedyAv.

Daily Max.

Mo. Av.

Weekly Av .

Daily Max.

CBOD5

63

125

5

10

Sus. Solids

75

150

6

12

Ann-Nitrogen

Mar-May1Sep-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 ]ERA'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 CFE 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, IEPA'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 tern. 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. ]EPA 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 polhrted, 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' . That's a 150% increase!

Clearly, not enough has been done to dean 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 .'°"

The Chicago Area

---

IEPA Draft NPDES IL 0020281

October 11, 2005

Page 6.f8

Transportation Study (CATS) is responsible for preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan

OM)

and corresponding Transportation Implementation Plans

(TIPS) which are used

to

-prioritize-transportation

-

projects

-

and

obtain lbderah -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

now 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 demonst, ate

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 Stormwaler 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 J_

b

Jr., P.E.

t

k

i

Attch: T

le9;:?003 Potable W

an agement Planfor Village ofHamprinire .

Table 111-3,

2003 Comprehensive Plan, Village ofHampshrire .

---

1EPA Drab

I 0020281

October 11, 2005

Page 7 aft

'

On pp3 o€te penult appbcaion, doeanaal ova

a daffy flow was 389,000 gpd in2003, 486,000lPd in

2002, and 413,000 gpd in200livbickavetagesto 429,000

gS&

.

-Proposed maxi mmdaily flow is 4,170,000 gpdor

9 thugs the 1979 permitted flow of456,000 hod .

See Kane Cormty&onnwater 014man ae, CC Jaatmay 1,2002

The Vilaged

ftis a"pesson

CmIshig

a

drielopmear (roe Seth

104(31)and 104(95)) mtd

's srxage

pk

isa

"developamt (see Section 104(32)) subject to the requircoacau of the Ordisaam

m At the

htazeftigt avenge flowof3 .47 mg the design mwdmum flow would be

9.63 mgd=

3 .47 x 2.78. See "Village's Response to Citizen Comments After Public Response"' dated Augt t8, 2005, response

7,page6. The c

et

rega

ueesa

Dow

of2.78L(

flawy(design

average flow) =4.17mgM.5mgd=2.78.

causing

a

"flood" as defined in Section 104(42) of the

Kane Counfonnwater Ordinance

Hampshire's STP

wbach hxseasesbaseflaw elevations in the cr

aad n

s flooding

a lire

bit worse" fs fa

Violation of Sec ion 201(a) which

requires sobwrease in

flood of

lions and no

in food conveyance

cVwsltyefthecamn.

I

'

For example, caftWillow-1Siggins Creek asintribemry to the Des Plains River, a significantt

amp of

the

Meek flow is from a MWRD sewage treats

plait Eammous

ood c>udral tasks ave recently been balk en

O'Hare

Airport and To»icy Avenue costing tens of millions of dollars to reduce the flooding caused, in part, by the

eewage treatment

omtfows.

Comntanpalod forth 750,000 gpd

it

opened on Apail30, 2004 and closed

Jun 30,2004.

lime's

far Wqmadns to 1,100,000g

1

wasfiledat EPA an

17, M4,

°s See NPDES Application, page 2 of 21 .

"e See NWC's 2020

at httvllwww.nii,c.orgltest/revised 2020 table.htm(esdoned

September 27, 2000).

's See

Ta

9from Se tiara l at the

2003Powbk WaterMemggemant Platfor filage4J'Hamprhbe Anne

County,Illinoisby Engineering Fntespeises,

Inc,

dated November 2003. Waters

was projected to decline

,to

100 gallons per day

capita in 2008 from 159 gallons per

day

petcapita in 2002. Also, population equiWems

wecegzajectodtobe24,530by 2018 and 28,275 by 2023, greatly exceeding NIPC's fonxcast .

a

gee

m C

9 f a"Vj

'sR

to

Citizen

Cocmtenta AttaPablleNcdkcP dated Augast8,

2005.

*s

See Do

Future

of

WaterAvatlaMlity& Liar r theChtcagoRegion, pmaWm

to WYoddngfora

Fume" on November 2, 2002 at Yodwille, Illinois, pages 2 .3 .

zE

ibs6, poges2 and 7.

See pages 60,55 and62

fromFaciltdesPhm (revised 5/04)

appended toHJampshite's NPDES application .

a' See 35111. Adm. Code 304.120.4.

'° See Lake Ccamtypublic Works

IIA022055,DAF=16 mgd, CRODS=10 mgJ1, CBOD5=1,334 lbs .

The

=> Ma =16 a

x 10 n J1 x8.34=1.334.4 r

m 1,3341bs

Also, Village of Kirkland,1L0064092, DAF=0.31q

.1,CBOD5=25 mg/l, CBOD5=65 lbs

---

IEPA Draft NPDES IL 0020281

October 11, 2005

page 8o18

The

math=>

=0.31 mwl x 25 ntg/I x 8.34 a64.63 tmadto 65lbs

Mao

Village of Dwight STP expandon,11.0022641, DAF=0.864 /0.983 mgd (exisdng/proposed), CBOD5=101

10mgA,COODS-72 /82Ib®. Noteinaeatdmassloadbgwhite

b

MIL

he matEtdsling=> IAass=0.864mgdx 10 mg/1 x 8.34=72.05round to 72 Is

TGemath

=>

=0.983

x 10 M4 x 8.34=81.98 rood to 82ft

SeeRlhrolsArmuaJAir QuahtyReport 1003, Executive Summary, page ix.

'"

Statewide, there bat been27 exceedances solar this yearcomperedto 11 in200Z a

oggft

245%in

set

See ]EPA Illinois Ozone 8-Mw

Summary at http://www.epa.state.ii.us/air/ozonetexceedances.html .

-'

SeeJJdtrwlsAaarualAn'QaaluyRepw~t2003,TSCSt

= See EPA letter to CATS dated Madder 26,1997, whiten states in pact

"he UAW Stores

Proteodon Agency (U38PA) is concerned with the covirmunow

in,ects of the past trends isthe Otagoarmwbicb

ofthe region and

dtvdopaientcfafl'idmnt 1<ands

. AHacug dieCbica o

¢

.

v wbyonty4

peoentbed 1970 and 1990, theregioaa's land area grew by 35 paced aid the reside dial land

by 46

paten.

These treads haw the effectof Waeasingarr pollution and water poll uion

ooutdb ue to ecological dcgcada<iansadwatea

ad problems. For example, the Federal Highway

motes

daily vehicle miles oftravel (flu) grew by 22 percent between 1989 aM 1994 .

Ibis increase in VMT cxroIRtnos to air pollmien Bum

a

vehicless such as the arrow* ofvolatile

wwodecampounk and

released to tbc*.

Of the three land use policy options under consi

on, USEPA endorses the isM], agricultural protection,

=do* this -hand tnop¢ionbaamse this option willmoo

aw

aldy address tie ben& that are

advasety affecting air and water tpwli{y

. The USE PA applauds the work ofcommuaity leaders and

it

Plamdng

re develop polices desIgnad to slaw the past outward trait

ands sfli ftvd~"

` SeeTable103 .

Cf"

1

tei.aodVWilk09gseMile

gArea,20(2

Cornjnhensive pier» tIllag® gffmnpshire. Agriculture comprises 25,900.48 acme or 81.89% of theexisting land

awes ire

'sPlanrriug Area ha theSsme, agtkathu a would be

reduced to

only

6,166 S2acres

or 19.50% in favor of housing, which wouldgime to 18,268.72 saes or 57.76%

---

ENGMdEERINGENTERPRI8M8, INC.

SUGAR GROVE. MJ.B1018

COPYRaw2003

2002

POPULATIONEOUNALEN18

3,300

ANNUALPUMPAGE

181,33,000 GAL

MA)OMUMMONRO.YPUMPALE

22,373,800 GAL

MA*MUM GHYt4ff$M1 MONTH

AV!RAGEDMLYPUMPAGE

624022 GAL

7.UU6MUMAVERAOEDALYPUMPAGE

721,710

GAL

AMXIMUMOAILYPUMPAGE

923AW GAL

COMPUTED MA

WMHOUR

70,917 GAL

COMPTEDMA

WMHDUR

1.262 GPM

-AVG.QAUIMADOMOAY

MTIOOFMAX.AVG DAYTOAVG.OAY

1.37

RATIO OP If. DAY TOAVG.DAY

1.76

.

1N GPCO

VILLAGE OF HAMPSHIRE

WATER WORKS SYSTEM EVALUATION

PRO

OTEIA

WATER USE

TABLE NO. 0

YEm2003

0,000

154OW GAL

x636

Gm

YEAR 2013

21,275

774537,500 GAL

?127,600 GAL

4254000 GAL

WAR

2018

YEA12023

24,630

884344000 GAL

2,453,000

GAL

4,804000 GAL

3683 GAL

4810

GPM

100 GPCD

too

404833 GAL

4814

GPM

28,275

1,037,037,600 GAL

x67/,600

GAL

485M00 GAL

471.260

GAL

7,854 GPM

100

GPCD

100

GPCO

Zoo

t00 GPCD

zoo

LOG

,k%:'xrJV>'Nby.,vr~rpJi.,nw ,aHW,.hnSg1YI0u,yamln. S

nam

PROACIEDORCALCtLATEOQUANT=ARsslOWNINIfAuCS

QUANTn1E8QBTA=DPROM2002R86OSAREM1 BOLD

QUANIITIEBFOR2=NOL DEBOTNTHENORRMBtNANDCENTRALWATERSYSTEMS

VILLAGE CF NAWSWR

POtABLE WATERMANAGO.MNt PLAN

SECTION 1

PAGE 10

---

I

I

Table III-3

Comparison of Existing and Future Land Use in 49-Square Mile Planning Area

i

Chapter 111, Future Land Use

i

i

Chapter fit, Pago 8 of 16

Land Use Classification

Existing Land Use

Acres

% of Total

2003 Future Land Use

Acres

% of Total

Agriculture

19.50%

25,900.48

81.89%

6,188.52

Agribusiness

642.15

2.03%

780.30

2.40%

Forest Preserve/Open Space

368.80

1.17%

568.82

2.99%

Parks and Recreation

94.80

0.30%

123.84

0.39%

Stormwnter Basins and Farm Ponds

116.07

0.37%

173.96

0.55%

Estate Residential (0.24 to 0.80 units/acre)

2,640.76

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-Density Residential (1.2510 2.0 unita/acre)

278.53

0.88%

2.463.00

8.80%

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%

169.58

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%

645 .48

2.04%

Regional Commercial

-

0.00%

340.29

1.08%

Interchange Commercial

161.19

0.51%

336.26

1 .06",6

Office

-

0.00%

428.7.9

1.36%

Business Park

95.96

0.30%

2,249.26

7.11%

Industrial and Warehouse Distribution

253.92

0.80%

1

309.63 >

0.98%

Major Roads

686.31

2.17%

1,021 .89

3,23%

Totals

31,629.42

100.00%

31,029.42 .

100.00%

Major Roads Include:

Allen Road

Interchange Existing, NW Tol way and US 20

Hennig Road

Big Timber Road

NW Toil way and Brier Hill Road

IL Route 72

Brier Min Road

Ketchum Road

Widmayer Road

Gast Road

US Route 20

Outerbeit

Freeway

---

P

W&1mn P. Sasmkh

flfwc*?k

Iladd Vo grra

Yr~ge Tarams

GbrukAnIa n

Torn Bnn

OnisAn*

MA SWAW11

F.d&y&wki

fear-

.

cM.fofPaNa

.rom Asdsimn

!Saar gi;*wa

Xa&& n Mkhad

Pab&c %Vorkr Dhnrmr

Joke Bidingrr

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 WaterQualityStandards

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). Ail 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. 5and 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 cation, 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

H

ampshire supports the approval of the proposal to Implement revised water

quality standards for radium' concentrations in the receiving stream

.

RECEIVED

PSHI

t

ics9FFSCE

DEC 0 7

DF

o

Boar ,

___

December 6, 2004

.

---

Ms. Dorothy M. GUnn

December 6, 2004

Page 2

The Village of Hampshire appreciates the opportunityto provide comments to

the Illinois Pollution Control Board on this important issue to our community

.

BPS/WPS/tpf

pc:

Mr. Chuck'Anders®h, Village

Trustee

Atty. Mark Schuster, Village

Attorney

Ms. Linda

Vasquez,

Village Clark

Mr. John Bidinger, Supt Of Public Works

JKM, JWF -EEl

Respectfully submitted,

Bradley P. Sanderson, P.E.

Senior Project' Manager

Engineering Enterprises, Inc

William P. Schmidt

Village President

Village of Hampshire

C.1WW6OW6\Tw*q iterm MWfGXtmctP&lt+1Qx

---

MAJOR AQUIFERS

PORTION OF HAMPSHIRE TOWNSHIP

February 2005

Legen

NOTE:

MAJOR AQUIFERS BASED ON AN ONGOING

STUDY BY THE ILLINOIS STATE WATER SURVEY

AND THE ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOG4CAL SURVEY

---

U)

Z

LWL

0)

0=

W

',

.

C<

a a

LO

A

lw

Q

ZZ