ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 15,

1976

AURORA SANITARY DISTRICT AND

THE CITY OF AURORA,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 76—83

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Young):

This

matter came before the Board on the

variance

petition

filed March 26,

1976,

by the Aurora Sanitary District and the

City of Aurora seeking relief from Rule 602(d) (3)

of Chapter

3:

Water Pollution Rules and Regulations.

An amended petition was

filed on June

23,

1976

in response to a Board Order of April

8,

1976,

in which additional information was requested.

The Agency

filed

a Recommendation on August 13,

1976; no hearing was held

in this matter.

Rule 602(d) (3)

establishes

a compliance date of December

31,

1975 for Rule 602(c), which requires in part that all combined

sewer overflows shall be given sufficient treatment to prevent

pollution or

a violation of applicable water quality standards.

The Aurora Sanitary District provides wastewater treatment

for an area which includes the City of Aurora and the Villages

of Montgomery, North Aurora and parts of Oswego.

The treatment

plant presently has a design flow capacity of

32 MGD and the

District is planning to enlarge the plant to a design flow of

50 ~1GD. The District also owns and operates sewer interceptors

which cotlect

wastes

from

combined sewers, many

of

which are

owned

and

opera

Lcd by

the City ot Aurora

.

The

collection

S’/S

Lem

of

the

District

is

capable

of

carrying

a

minimum

of

2.5

times

the

dry

weather

flow

of

the

combined

sewer

system before overflows

occur.

The

District

has

accepted

a

Step

I

grant

for

the sewer system

evaluation survey.

This grant includes all Step

I work

to

be

done

within the City of Aurora.

The District alleges that it is pro-

ceeding on a time schedule as approved by the Agency and the anti-

cipated construction will provide for either the elimination of

overflows

or their treatment in accordance with the Board’s Rules

and ~equlations.

23

—

477

---

—7—

The District and the City allege,

and the Agency agrees,

that they

would suffer an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship

if forced

to proceed

with

the collection system improvements

needed prior

to obtaining assistance from existing grant funds.

The Agency has recognized the fact that many municipalities

and sanitary districts throughout

the

State have not met and

cannot presently meet the December 31, 1975 compliance date as

set by Rule 602(d) (3).

On December 22,

1975,

the Agency filed

an Amended Petition for Regulatory Change

(R75—l5) with the Board

specifically requesting that the date for complying with

Rule

602(d) (3) be extended until July

1,

1977, provided

a grant appli-

cation had been filed before December 31,

1975.

Although the

Board has not taken final action on this proposal,

at its May 20,

1976 meeting,

the Board authorized for publication a proposed

final draft of the Rule Change which would adopt the substance

of the Agency’s amendatory proposal.

The economic impact hearings

were held on August 26, and September

1,

1976.

In view of the foregoing, the Board is disposed to grant both

the City and the District the relief requested.

We believe an

arbitrary and unreasonable hardship would be placed on the Peti-

tioners by requiring the capital outlays necessary for compliance

without first allowing Petitioners to obtain assistance from

existing grant programs, and particularly

so when the Petitioners

would be precluded from any reimbursement from State/Federal grant

funds

if they were

to proceed in advance of a particular grant

award

(The Clinton Sanitary District,

PCB 75—498; The Sanitary

District of Elgin,

PCB 75—501)

As

a result of the Agency investigation in this matter,

three

overflow points

(Pierce Street,

East Berton Street Lift Station,

and Farnsworth Avenue)

were identified which are not presently

subject to any NPDES permit or application and are allegedly sub-

ject of

a dispute between the District and the City concerning

responsibility for the overflow points.

As suggested by the

Agency, the Board will require that the Petitioners resolve the

oI

rospons

Ll)i~1

i ty

br

Lhese

over 110W ~

I

flI~

GO

IhaL appro—

pr

Late

co rrec L

i~

ye

ic L

i on can be

t: Lme I y

under

Laken

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

1.

The Sanitary District of Aurora and the City of Aurora

are granted variance from the compliance date for combined sewer

overflows as established by Rule 602(d) (3)

ol the Water Pollution

Rules and Regulations.

Such variance

is granted until July

1,

1977,

or until

the Board adopts an Amendement

to the Regulations

in consideration of the Agency Regulatory Proposal

(R75-15)

,

whic~i

ever

is earlier.

23—478

---

—3—

2.

The

District

and

the

City

are

required

during

the

period of this variance to maintain optimum operating efficiency

and convey as much combined sewer flow to the treatment plant

as

is possible.

3.

The variance grant for either Petitioner will immediately

terminate

if either is offered a grant during this period and

does not respond with appropriate action to bring the combined

sewer system into compliance.

4.

Within

60 days of the date of the Order, the District

and the City will submit to the Agency and the Board proof that

they have resolved the issue of responsibility for all overflow

points

in the system over which there

is dispute and apply

for the necessary permits therefore.

5.

Within

35 days of the date of this Order, the District

and the City shall submit to the Manager, Variance Section, Divi-

sion of Water Pollution Control, Illinois Environmental Pro-

tection Agency,

2200 Churchill Road,

Springfield,

Illinois,

62706,

an executed Certification of Acceptance and agreement

to be bound

to all terms and conditions of the variance.

The form of said

certification shall he as follows:

CERTIFICATION

I,

(We)

,

_______________________________ having read

the Order of the Pollution Control Board in PCB 76-83,

understand and accept said Order,

realizing that such

acceptance renders all terms and conditions thereto

binding and enforceable.

SIGNED

TITLE

IT

IS SO ORDERED.

I,

Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereb

certify the ab ye 0 inion and Order were

adopted ~n the

________

day of

_________________,

1976 by a

vote

~

(7

Illinois

Pollutio

ntrol

Board