ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 11, 1976
THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF ELGIN,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 75—501
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Young):
This matter comes before the Board upon the variance
petition filed December 29, 1975 by Sanitary District of
Elgin (District) seeking relief from Rule 602(d) (3) of the
Water Pollution Rules and Regulations (Rules). An Agency
Recommendation was filed with the Board on February 9, 1976.
No hearing was held in this matter.
The Sanitary District of Elgin is a municipal corporation
that provides wastewater treatment for a population of approxi-
mately 70,000 people in the City of Elgin and the Village of
South Elgin. The District does not own any combined sewers
but has built diversion structures at the ends of combined
sewers owned by the City of Elgin. These diversion structures
were used to divert combined sewage flows from the Fox River
to the District’s main plant for treatment. Since the District
is the treating authority for wastewater, it is responsible
for achieving compliance with
Rule
602(c) by giving treatment
to all combined sewer overflows sufficient to prevent pollution
or the violation of applicable water quality standards, not
later than December 31, 1975 as established by Rule 602(d) (3).
The District’s main plant has a design dry weather flow of 8.6
MGD and is capable of providing primary treatment and disinfection
to 2.5 times the dry weather flow.
In 1973 the District and Elgin retained a consulting engi-
neering firm to study the combined sewer overflow problem. In
October of 1975 the consultant recommended the construction of
a 100 MGD wastewater treatment plant in order to prevent pollu—
tion of the Fox River from the combined sewer overflows during
wet weather.
The District is normally not authorized to sell General
Obligation Bonds that would place it in debt beyond 5 per centum
of the valuation of taxable property in the District, assessed
for the taxable year 1974 to be 270 million dollars. The Dis-
20—293
—2—
trict is currently undergoing a 12 million dollar plant im-
provement and has a debt of 8 million dollars; therefore, the
District can raise no more than 5.5 million dollars for the
combined sewer overflow project. The construction of the
proposed plant would cost approximately 11.1 million dollars,
and absent a Section 46 Order of the Board the District does
not have the legal authority to sell bonds to raise this
amount of money. North Shore Sanitary District v. Pollution
Control Board, 302 NE 2c1 50 (1973). Thus, the District alleges
it will not be able to solve the problem until it receives an
IEPA and/or USEPA construction grant. The District, on behalf
of the District and Elgin, has filed for a Federal Grant and/or
a State Grant and has been given a priority number of 753 for
fiscal year 1976.
The District’s NPDES permit contains a schedule for bringing
the combined sewer overflows into compliance and this schedule
keys all dates and the final effluent limitations to dates
after which fund grants have become available. In the meantime,
the District is required to maintain optimum operating efficiency
and convey as much flow to its plant for treatment as possible.
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 (R75-15) with the
Board specifically requesting that the date for complying with
Rule 602(d) (3) be extended until July 1, 1977, provided a grant
application had been filed before December 31, 1975. Although
the Board has not taken final action on this proposal, the
Agency submits that the District has established sufficient
hardship to entitle it to a variance.
We are disposed to grant relief. The District did take
affirmative action by retaining a consultant in early 1973 to
study the problem of combined sewer overflows. The District
has applied for state and federal grants to implement the
consultant’s recommendation for the construction of a 100 NGD
plant, but many other projects will be funded before the Dis—
trict’s project. The costly nature of the proposed plant when
coupled with the restrictions on the District’s bonding power
make grant assistance a necessity. Once again it is noted that
the District’s main plant is presently being upgraded at a cost
of 12 million dollars and that the District presently has a debt
of 8 million dollars. In view of these efforts, we believe an
arbitrary and unreasonable hardship would be placed on the
District by requiring the massive capital outlays necessary for
compliance without first allowing the District to obtain assis-
tance from existing grant programs, and particularly so when
20 294
—3—
the District would be precluded from any reimbursement from
grant funds if they were to proceed in advance of a grant
award.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
1. The Elgin Sanitary District is granted variance for
its main plant from the compliance date for combined sewer
overflows as established by Rule 602(d) (3) of the Water
Pollution Rules and Regulations. Such variance is granted
until July 1, 1977, or such date as may be adopted by the
Board in consideration of the Agency Regulatory Proposal
(R75-15)
,
whichever is later.
2. The District is required during this period to main-
tain optimum operating efficiency and convey as much combined
sewer flow to its plant for treatment as is possible.
3. This variance will immediately terminate if the Dis-
trict is offered a grant during this period and the District
does not respond with appropriate action to bring it into
compliance.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above 0 inion and Order were
adopted on the
/$14
day of
,
1976
by a vote of
çI..~
Illinois Pollution
rol Board
20— 295