ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    August
    5,
    1976
    VILLAGE OF SENECA,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 76—118
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr. Dumelle):
    Petition for variance was filed by the Village of Seneca
    on April
    27,
    1976.
    The Petition requests a variance from Rule
    962(a)
    of Chapter
    3, Water Pollution Rules and Regulations of
    the Board, in order to connect 135 existing and unannexed
    dwelling units and
    58 now—vacant lots to the sewer system.
    On May
    6,
    1976 the Board requested additional information
    which was filed as an Amended Petition on June
    1,
    1976.
    On
    July 21, 1976 the Environmental Protection Agency filed its
    recommendation.
    No public hearing was held.
    The Village of Seneca has an Imhoff—type primary treatment
    plant and chlorinates the effluent from
    it.
    The sewage treatment
    plant discharges into Rat Run Creek which has a 7-day-in-1O—year
    low flow of zero and is a tributary to the Illinois River.
    The
    effluent requirements are 4 rng/l BOD5 and
    5 mg/i suspended
    solids.
    The Village puts the present plant effluent at 65 mg/i
    BODç and
    52 mg/l suspended solids.
    Based upon the connection
    of
    50
    of the requested dwelling units,
    the new effluent
    concentrations are calculated to be 75.6 mg/i BOD5 and 66.6
    mg/i suspended solids.
    Seneca asserts that it has a Fiscal Year 1976 priority
    of 231 and that its Infiltration-Inflow Analysis has been
    submitted to the Agency.
    This analysis has revealed
    a need
    for a sewer system evaluation survey to actually locate points
    23
    —
    247
    —2—
    of excessive infiltration and inflow.
    The Village is said tobe
    eliminating illegal downspout connections to the separate sanitary
    sewer system.
    The hardship to the Village of Seneca
    Is
    a loss of tax
    revenues and tax base
    if the variance is not granted.
    The new
    Commonwealth Edison Company nuclear generating station is being
    constructed in Brookfield Township a few miles south of the
    Village and is said to have
    a tidirect economic impact”.
    A
    restriction on growth could result in difficulty in raising
    the local portion of the funds required to become eligible for
    a 75
    construction grant for the needed sewage plant.
    If
    the
    340 persons
    (50
    of the 680 total population involved)
    are not
    connected
    to the sewer system,
    some $14,000 per year in tax
    losses will occur.
    The Agency recommendation states that Seneca has had
    connection permits denied to it since 1967.
    It places the
    contaminant reduction to be achieved by the primary plant at
    33
    for BOD5 and 50
    for suspended solids compared to respective
    reductions of 66.7
    and 60.9
    claimed by the Village.
    From this
    the projected higher strength effluents listed above are said to
    be too low from the levels that will actually result.
    The Infiltration-Inflow Analysis submitted to the Agency
    shows basement backups of two to eight hours
    in duration during
    a moderate rain.
    The sewer system evaluation mentioned above
    is expected
    in September with
    a facilities plan expected in
    October 1976.
    Plans and specifications are to be completed
    by April
    1977.
    The Agency recounts a long list of deficiencies in the
    operation of the existing sewage treatment plant.
    Influent
    (raw sewage)
    has been diverted to the sludge drying beds which
    overflow to the ground 50 feet from Rat Run Creek.
    Screenings
    are not being disposed of properly.
    The plant flow is not
    measured.
    No certified plant operator
    is employed.
    Operating
    reports are not being submitted and laboratory tests are not
    performed properly.
    A biological survey of Rat Run Creek performed May
    14,
    1976
    shows
    a
    “balanced” condition a mile upstream of the sewage plant
    discharge and an “unbalanced” condition 300 yards upstream as
    well
    as 0.3 mile downstream.
    At a 0.8 mile distance downstream
    the Creek was “semi—polluted”.
    The “unbalanced” conditions are
    said
    to be due to stream channelization.
    Sludge-like deposits
    were found downstream presumably at the 0.3 mile station.
    23
    —
    248
    —3—
    The Agency summarizes all the deficiencies in plant operation
    and the existence of basement backups and recommends that a
    variance not be granted.
    We agree with the Agency and deny the variance without
    prejudice.
    The sewer system evaluation study
    is due in just a
    month and may uncover and correct large inflows that in turn
    might eliminate the existing basement backups.
    The Board
    is
    of the opinion that a petitioner ought to fulfill the requirements
    for good plant operation and maintenance before
    a variance is
    granted.
    Some showing of good faith is needed and has not been
    made to date.
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of
    fact
    and conclusions of law.
    ORDER
    The Petition for Variance from Rule 962(a)
    of Chapter
    3
    is denied without prejudice.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    B ard~hereby certify the above Opinion and 0 der were adopted on the
    ~
    day of August,
    1976 by a vote of
    ...~O
    Illinois Pollution
    Board
    23
    —
    249

    Back to top