ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    January
    24,
    1972
    MOWEAQUA COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT 6A
    v.
    )
    #
    72—15
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    Opinion
    & Order of the Board
    (by Mr.
    Currie)
    The School District operates
    its own small sewage treat-
    ment facility, which would allegedly require
    a $20,000
    expenditure to bring up
    to standard.
    The District alleges that
    it expects
    the Village of Moweaqua to construct
    a municipal
    treatment plant “within the very near future”
    and that
    its own
    plant will he abandonda
    at that time.
    The District asks
    that it
    be relieved from the regulations requiring upgrading of
    its own
    plant in order
    to avoid what
    it considers an unnecessary expense,
    promising
    to make certain lesser improvements
    in
    the meantime.
    We strongly endorse the desirability of phasing out small
    and relatively inefficient treatment plants.
    Cf.
    DuPage
    Regionalization,
    ~R 70-17, January
    6,
    1972.
    We recognize that
    in
    some cases
    it may
    be appropriate to allow relief from strict
    standards for
    a brief period pending replacement of
    a small
    plant in order
    to avoid expenditures
    that are not justified
    by
    the benefits.
    See Metropolitan Sanitary District v.
    EPA,
    ~ 71-166
    (Orland Park)
    ,
    decided September
    16,
    1971.
    In
    the present case
    the petition does not, however, present
    sufficient facts
    on which we can base
    a determination that indeed
    such
    is the case here.
    We need
    a firmer assurance that the
    Village
    in fact will build an adequate plant of
    its own and
    that this will be accomplished within a reasonably short time.
    The Village itself should be joined in any further petition
    of
    this nature
    in order
    that
    it could be bound by our
    order.
    See
    Flintkote Co.
    v.
    EPA.
    #
    71-68,
    November
    11,
    1971.
    In
    the absence
    of
    a firm program for phasing out
    the exist-
    ing plant,
    we could
    not grant this petition even if all
    the facts
    alleged
    were
    proved.
    As
    in
    York
    Center
    v.
    EPA,
    #
    72-7,
    January
    17,
    1972,
    we
    cannot
    grant
    an
    open—ended
    variance
    without
    a
    commit-
    ment
    that
    the problem will be cured within
    a reasonable
    time.
    3
    --
    525
    A
    hearing,
    therefore,
    would
    be
    premature.
    We
    therefore
    hereby
    dismiss
    the
    r~titionwith
    leave
    to file an amended petition
    setting
    forth
    a program for terminating discharges
    in excess of
    regulation
    limits,
    by replacement
    of
    the facility or other-
    wise.
    I,
    Christan Moffett, Clerk of
    the Pollution Control Board, certify
    that
    the Board adopted the
    above Opinion and Order
    of
    the Board
    this
    ,~/
    day of January,
    1972 by vote of
    -~
    /7’
    ‘
    3
    526

    Back to top