ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    August 12,
    1976
    GALESBURG SANITARY DISTRICT,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 76—154
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr.
    Young):
    This matter comes before the Board on the variance petition
    filed May 17,
    1976 by the Galesburg Sanitary District seeking
    relief from Rule 602(d) (3) of Chapter
    3:
    Water Pollution Rules
    and Regulations.
    An Agency Recommendation was filed with the
    Board on June 30,
    1976 and the District
    filed
    a Response on July
    21,
    1976.
    An Amended Recommendation was filed on August
    5,
    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 Galesburg Sanitary District owns and operates the sewer
    system and two treatment plants servicing an area comprised pri-
    marily by the City of Galesburg.
    The majority of the sewer system
    is composed of separate storm and sanitary sewers, although por-
    tions of the sanitary sewer system receive direct storm water inflow.
    This inflow causes occasional overflows of combined sewers at
    43
    points in the system to the waters of Cedar Fork Creek.
    This over-
    flow is estimated to be 138 million gallons per year.
    The District has completed its Step
    I Facilities Plan relative
    to the treatment of combined sewer overflows and this plan is
    currently under Agency review.
    Other improvements are also being
    considered for the system with the total project cost estimated
    to be nearly $14,750,000.00.
    The improvements needed to provide
    control of the overflow account for almost half of this amount.
    Because of the high cost of these improvements, the District
    alleges that it would suffer an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship
    if forced to comply without first obtaining Federal assistance.
    23—321
    —2—
    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 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
    have yet to be conducted
    in this matter.
    In view of the foregoing, the Board is disposed to grant
    the District the relief requested.
    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 assistance from existing grant
    programs, and particularly
    so when the District would be precluded
    from any reimbursement from State/Federal grant funds if the Dis-
    trict 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).
    The Agency suggests that the Board either enter an abatement
    Order or retain jurisdiction of this matter
    so that such an Order
    could be issued in the event the District’s scheduled bonding
    referendum fails.
    Because the facts of this present matter indi-
    cate that the District is diligently following its compliance pro-
    gram,
    the Board does not believe that an abatement Order is presently
    required.
    In the event the referendum fails, the District can easily
    file
    a petition with the Board seeking the desired relief and this
    proceeding could be incorporated into that petition.
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and con-
    clusions of law in this matter.
    ORDER
    1.
    The Galesburg Sanitary District
    is granted variance from
    the compliance date for the treatment of 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
    until the Board takes final action in consideration of Regulatory
    Proposal P.75—15, whichever
    is earlier.
    2.
    During the period of this variance the District shall
    maintain optimum plant operating efficiency and convey as much
    combined sewer flow to its plant as is practicable.
    23
    —
    322
    —3—
    3.
    This variance will immediately terminate if the District
    is offered a State or Federal grant during this period and the
    District does not respond with appropriate action to bring the
    combined sewer system 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
    °k
    the
    /~1~
    day of
    ______________,
    1976 by
    a
    vote of
    _____.
    OA~4~
    ~
    Christan
    L. Moffet
    ~terk
    Illinois Pollution
    ~p’trolBoard
    23
    —
    323

    Back to top