ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 22,
1976
CITY OF EFFINGHAM,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 76—115
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Young):
This matter comes before the Board on the variance peti-
tion filed April
26,
1976 by the City of Effingham seeking
relief from Rule 602(c) (2)
and Rule 602(d) (3)
of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Rules and Regulations.
An Agency Recommendation
was filed with the Board on June 22, 1976 and a Supplement to
the Recommendation was filed on July 6,
1976.
Rule 602(d) (3)
sets a compliance date of December 31,
1975
for Rule 602(c), which requires
in subpart
Cc) (2)
that primary
treatment and disinfection be given to combined sewer overflows
in excess of the dry weather flows plus first flush storm flows.
The City of Effingham engages in the collection,
treatment,
and disposal of wastewater generated by its population of approxi—
ruately 9,500 people.
The City estimates that it presently treats
75
of the combined flow.
An estimated 300 million gallons of
storm water is collected annually with the sanitary flow with
approximately 50 million gallons of this amount being discharged
without treatment.
Petitioner alleges this untreated discharge
occurs during high intensity rainfall
(greater than
1” per hour)
when the percentage of sanitary wastewater in the combined flow
is probably less than 6.
At the present time the treatment plant is on Agency imposed
restricted status.
(Rec.
2.)
The existing STP treats flows up
to 3.5 MGD.
The maximum peak flow is just over
4 MGD.
The present
treatment facility cannot treat flows above this figure without
causing serious damage to the treatment plant.
The City has a Step
I facilities planning grant and the Agency is presently reviewing
the Step
I documents.
The City has
a priority number of
46 appli-
cable to the treatment of combined sewer overflows and the City
can expect to qualify for a Step II and Step III grant.
(Rec.
3.)
23—159
—2—
The City is also preparing plans for a new treatment plant and the
City alleges it will suffer an unreasonable hardship if required
to provide overflow treatment at the present time rather than com-
pleting all improvements at the same time.
The cost of constructing
the overflow treatment facilities
is estimated at $675,000.00 and
if the City begins work on the overflow facilities prior, to re-
ceiving the Step II and Step III grant awards,
it will be precluded
from any reimbursement from State/Federal grant funds.
The City alleges that the restriction on the extension of
sewage collection facilities has imposed a severe economic hardship
upon it.
It need be pointed out, however, that the grant of this
variance will not automatically cause the plant to be taken off
restricted status.
If that status has resulted solely from a com-
bined sewer overflow problem, the relief requested by this variance
will cause that status to be lifted, otherwise it would remain in
effect.
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 hearir~gs
have yet to be conducted in this matter.
In view of the foregoing,
the Board is disposed to grant the
City of Effingham the relief requested.
We believe an arbitrary
and unreasonable hardship would be placed on the City by requiring
the massive capital outlays necessary for compliance without first
allowing the City to obtain assistance from existing grant programs,
and particularly so when the City would be precluded from any reim-
bursement from State/Federal grant funds
if the City were to pro-
ceed in advance of a particular grant award
(The Clinton Sanitary
District, PCB 75-498;
The Sanitary District of Elgin, PCB 75-501).
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
1.
The City of Effingham is granted variance from the com-
pliance date of Rule 602(d) (3)
as it applies to the treatment of
combined sewer overflows required by Rule 602(c) (2) of the Water
23—
160
—3—
Pollution Rules and Regulations.
Such variance is granted until
July 1,
1977, or until the Board takes final action in considera-
tion of Regulatory Proposal R75—l5, whichever is earlier.
2.
During the period of this variance the City shall main-
tain optimum plant operating efficiency and convey as much com-
bined sewer flow to its plant as
is practicable.
3.
This variance will immediately terminate if the City is
offered a State or Federal grant during this period and the City
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,
herel?
certify the ab ye Opinion and Order were
adopted
the
~
day of
—
,
1976 by
a
voteof
-p
.
~
Illinois Pollution
rol Board
23
—
161