ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 17, 1973

)

IN THE MATTER OF

)

PROPOSED REGULATION CONCERNING

)

R72-19

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION

)

)

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Dumelle)

This proposal was earlier consolidated with R7l-l9 involving sewer

connections and sewer bans.

This opinion and order will cover only

R72-l9.

This opinion supports

a Board motion adopted May

3,

1973.

This proposed regulation was submitted by the Home Builders

Association of Illinois to be added to Chapter

3 of the Pollution

Control Board Rules

and Regulations.

The proposals

is

as

follows:

604

New sewers and treatment works

(a)

Policy.

It

is

the policy of the Act and of this

chapter

to prevent the discharge of wastes that have

not been treated adequately to meet applicable stand-

ards.

The addition of wastes

from new or increased

sources

to sewers

or to treatment plants that

are

insufficient

to treat them

is contrary to this policy.

At

the same time the demands being placed upon sewers

and treatment facilities will continue to increase.

It

is important that

sewers and treatment

facilities

be able

to meet this increased demand.

(b)

Projections

of future flow influent volume.

In the

event

a sewer,

a treatment works or both

a sewer and

its treatment works has

an average flow influent for

a period of three consecutive months which

is

equal to

or in excess of

80

of its operating capacity as

determined

in accordance with

the effluent standards

set out in Part

IV of this Chapter, the sanitary

district, municipal corporation or other public or

private

body

responsible

for

the

operation

of

the

sewer,

treatment

works

or

both

the

sewer

and

its

treatment

works,

must

within

90

days

from

the

last

day

of

the

third

consecutive

month,

submit

in

writing

to the Board for its approval an analysis of the

projected intake load of the sewer or treatment work

and either:

1.

its proposal for improving and upgrading the

sewer,

treatment works

or both the sewer and

its treatment works

so that

it will be available

to dispose of wastes from new or increased

sources without violating the effluent standards

8—

53

---

-2-

set out

in Part

IV of this Chapter;

or

2.

evidence establishing that the sewer, treat-

ment works or both the sewer and its treatment

works are adequate in their present condition

to dispose of wastes from new or increased sources

without violating the effluent standards

set out

in Part

IV of this Chapter.

(c)

Form of proposal.

All proposals submitted

pursuant to the requirements of Section 604(b)

(1) must

give

a complete description of the plan adopted by the

sanitary district, municipal corporation or other

public or private body responsible for its operation

for the improvement and upgrade of the sewer, treat-

ment works

or both the sewer and its treatment works.

For purposes of this section a plan will be considered

incomplete

if

it does not include

the

following:

1.

a description of the physical changes

to be

made in the existing sewer, treatment works

or

both the sewer and its treatment works;

2.

an estimate

of the cost to improve and upgrade

the

existing sewer,

treatment works

or both the

sewer and its treatment works in the manner set

out in the plan;

3.

an estimate of

the time it will take to improve

and upgrade

the existing

sewer, treatment works

or both the sewer and its treatment works in the

manner setout in the plan;

and

4.

the method adopted to finance the improvements.

(d)

Implementation of proposal.

In the event

a sewer,

treatment works

or both

a sewer and its treatment works

has an average flow influent for

a period of three

consecutive months which

is equal or in excess of 90

of its operating capacity as determined in accordance

with the effluent standards

set out in Part

IV of this

Chapter,

the sanitary district, municipal corporation

or other public

or private body responsible for the

operation of the sewer,

treatment works

or both,

the

sewer

and its treatment works must, within

90 days from

the last day of the third consecutive month begin

implementing

a plan previously approved by the Board

for improving and upgrading the sewer,

treatment works

or both the sewer and its treatment works so that

it

will be

able to dispose of wastes from new or increased

sources without violating the effluent standards

set

out in Part

IV of this Chapter.

8—54

---

-3-

Hearings were held in Chicago and Edwardsville

on January

25

and February

26,

1973 respectively.

We find the record inadequate

to support the proposal.

The

only evidence presented in favor of the proposal was the testimony

of one representative of the Home Builders Association who appeared

to know much more about public relations than about water quality

or sewage treatment plants.

He plainly admitted that neither he

nor his Association had any technical expertise on the subject.

The stated intention of the Association here was merely to present

the idea of automatic treatment plant expansion and then let

the

Board work out the details

in some legally and technically acceptable

form.

We choose, however, not to adopt this apprQach to the regula-

tory process before

the Board.

We expect the proponents

of regulations

to bear some burden ofdemonstrating the need for their proposals.

This

was not done

in this case.The only thing we agree upon here is that

there

is

a need for improved water quality.

The record, however,

does not establish a need for compulsory, automatic treatment plant

expansion as the regulation proposes.

There

is no proof that

the

hardship,

if any, created by a sewer connection ban outweighs the

hardships which would be created by automatic expansion.

In fact,

there

is no proof that

a sewer ban per se would create any hardship

at all, and even if some were created,

the Act provides for variances

which would relieve such hardship if appropriate.

There

is no proof that

the proposal would be feasible.

To

the contrary, there

is much evidence submitted by municipalities,

sanitary districts,

waste water utilities and engineering consul-

tants which points

out that

it would be totally unfeasible

to require

automatic expansion at a certain fixed point because of the uncer-

tainty involving population trends and financing.

We view this proposal

as more of an attempt to create unlimited

opporttinities

for builders to carry on their business for their own

profit than as

an attempt

to really upgrade water quality.

We

understand

the proponentst

position but we cannot accept their proposal.

The proposed regulation in this proceeding is dismissed.

This opinion constitutes

the Board’s

findings of fact and

conclusions of law.

IT

IS SO ORDERED.

I,,

Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby cert~f,~

the above Opinion and Order of the Board was

adopted on the

/7

day of May, 1973 by a vote of

~“_o

Christan L. Moffet ,.9,~Ierk

Illinois Pollution ~ófitrolBoard

8—55