ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August 15, 1972

ELGIN SANITARY DISTRICT

v.

)

#72—211

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Opinion and Order of the Board

(by Mr. Currie):

The Elgin Sanitary District operates a secondary sewage

treatment plant providing activated sludge treatment to a

portion of the flow

(2.5 mgd) and trickling filter treatment

to the rest

(6.1 mgd) before discharge to the Fox River.

The

implementation plan for Rules and Regulations SWB-l1, adopted

by the

Sanitary Water Board in 1967,

imposed an effluent

standard of

20 mg/i BOD and 25 mg/i suspended solids for

municipal plants on the Fox, with stricter requirements for

those having

a stream-to-effluent dilution ratio of less than

2 to

1.

(SWB-ll, Rule 1.08 ~ll;

see also Technical Release

20-22

(1968).) Dischargers having less than secondary treat-

ment were given future compliance dates; the Elgin Sanitary

District, which already had secondary treatment, was not.

Our new Rule 404 (b) makes the same standard -effective

throughout the State, with certain exceptions not here material,

by July

1,

1972 or such earlier date as may have been

prescribed by earlier rules

(PCB Regs.,

Ch.

3, Rule 404(b).)

The District’s first petition

(#72-138) recited that the

plant effluent had averaged

37 mg/i BOD and 34 mg/i suspended

solids from March 1971 through February 1972, with higher

values for same months; reported on the status of the District’s

program for upgrading the secondary facilities to meet the

standard; and asked for a year’s extension of the deadline of

July,

1972, which was attributed to Rules and Regulations

SWB_l4.*

A revised petition (#72-211) was later filed,

in light

of our amended regulations, requesting specifically a year’s

extension of the alleged July

1,

1973 deadline of the new

Rule 404(b)

and expressly allowing the Board

90 days from the

*SWBl4, with its July 1972 date, actually applied only to waters

not covered by earlier regulations such as SWB—11.

5

—

169

---

—2—

amended filing in which to decide the case.

We rejected an Agency

motion to dismiss for failure to file a procedurally adequate

petition (June 27,

1972).

The Agency recommends that we deny the petition on the

ground that no showing has been made to justify the failure

to meet the applicable deadline.

We agree for two reasons.

First,

as we have often held,

the mere failure to meet a

deadline does not justify a variance;

if it did every violation

would be its own excuse.

Decatur Sanitary District v.

EPA,

#71-37 (March

2,

1971)

.

The District has not alleged any

reason for its delay in meeting the standard, which was adopted

as long ago as 1967.

The present regulation embodying the

1972 completion date

(or an earlier one where former regulations

so provided) did not suddenly catch the District unawares;

the

District had had since 1967 to comply.

There is no allegation

here,

as in EPA v. Marion, #71-25

(Oct.

28,

1971)

,

that the im-

provements were held up by a relevant change in the applicable

standard;

20 and 25 were the rule in 1967 and have been ever since.

Second, even though it

is clear that further time will be

needed to build permanent facilities to meet the standard,

there

are no allegations to establish that the District cannot meet

the 20-25 standard by introducing standard chemicals

into its exist-

ing tanks to improve precipitation.

See North Shore Sanitary

District v.

EPA,

#71-343

(Jan.

31, l972)for an instance of dramatic

improvements by this method.

In the absence of allegations which,

if proved, would

demonstrate either that-the variance is necessary or that the

delay is justified, we must dismiss the request without prejudice to

such further proceedings as the parties may deem appropriate.

It is so ordered.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, c,~rtify

that the Board adopted the above Opinion and Order this /~‘ ~

day of August,

1972, by a vote of

-

5—