ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July

19, 1984

CITY OF KF.ITHSBURG,

)

PETITIONER,

V..

)

PCB 84—57

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

)

RESPONDENT.

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by

J..

Anderson):

The

original variance petition

was filed May

2,

1984..

The

Board on May 3 directed the petitioner to

look at the

procedural

rules and to file an amended petition providing

the information

required in Part

104.

The amended petition,

filed July 3,

still does not

provide

the information

needed

by the Board.

More specifically,

1)

The City refers to ~interim” effluent limitations con-

tained in its old

NPDES

permit, and “final” effluent

limitations

contained in its

current permit.

The Board does not

mainta~n

files of all NPDES permits.

The City must tell the Board what the

interim

limits were~and what the new limits are.

2)

The Board does not usually grant

variance

from

NPDES

perrr~it

effluent

limitations;

it

grants variance from Board

rules.

The

City should

tell the

Board which specific rules in

35 III.

Adm~

Code

Part

304

‘~Effluent Standards”

it

needs

variance

from,

that is,

which

rules

contain the numerical limits listed as

conditions

in

the

new

NPDES permit.

3)

In support of

its

arbitrary

or

unreasonable

hardship

claim

in

paragraphs

5 and

7

the

City

cites

a

study

by

Casler,

Jouser

and Hutchinson,

Inc.,

apparently

submitted

to

the

Ager~cy

in

1977.

Since the

Board

does

not

receive

copies

of

such

sub~ittalsto the Agency,

the

City

must

provide

the

Board

with

any

relevant

pages

of

the

study.

Also,

since

this

study

is

7

years

old,

the City

must

specify

whether

the

information

contained in those

pages

is

still

relevant.

~g-R5

---

4)

The City states that it

has been able to comply

with

“interim” effluent limitations..

The

City

must

present

data

as

to

what

its

actual

discharges

are

for

the

parameters

for

which

variance

is

requested..

5)

The City should explain the

chart

contained as the

last

page to Exhibit L

6)

The “compliance program”

contained in paragraph

6,

and

the statements

in the last

“wherefore”

paragraph,

do not give

specific dates when various

construction

activities

will

be

completed if funding is

available,

and

indicate

that

no

work will

be done if funding is not available.

Specific

dates

must be

given in each case.

The Environmental Protection Act does not

allow the Board to postpone

compliance indefinitely

by means of a

variance.

If part of the

compliance

program

would involve the

filing of a petition for

site—specific

rule,

the

variance

petition

must say

so..

The Board has been more

than usually specific

in this Order,

as the petition was filed by a

small

municipality..

However,

since this

is the City~ssecond

chance at

filing

a sufficient

petition, the Board again advises the City that,

if it does not

file an amended petition curing

the noted deficiencies

within 45

days of the date of this Order,

this action will

be

subject to

dismissal.

IT

IS SO

ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M~Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

hereby certify that the

above Order

was

adopted

on the

~fday

~

1984

by

a

vote

of~9

Dorothy

N..

nn,

Clerk

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board