ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 10, 1980

VILLAGE OF RIVERTON,

)

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 80—44

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION OF THE BOARD (by I. Goodman):

This Opinion supports the Board Order entered herein on

June 12, 1980.

On March 17, 1980 the Village of Riverton (Village) filed

this petition for variance from Rule 962(a) of Chapter 3: Water

Pollution of the Board’s regulations. Hearing was waived in this

matter. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) has

recommended grant of the proposed variance.

The subject of this variance petition is a proposed

300—foot, 8—inch sewer with two service extensions and two

manholes which will extend northward of the intersection of

Spaulding and 5th Streets in the Village of Riverton, Illinois.

The sewerage system to which this proposed sewer extension would

be connected is presently on restricted status. Although the

Village is aware that the Agency could not permit connection of

the proposed extension to a system placed under restricted

status, it nevertheless wishes to build the sewer at this time so

that it might subsequently construct an overlying roadway.

The Village applied to the Agency for a construct-only

permit. The Agency denied the construct-only permit application

pursuant to the Agency’s WPC-5 Guidelines. The Agency envisions,

quite logically, that a construct—only permit should be issued

only in the event that the facility to be constructed would

shortly be in a position to be hooked on to the system, i.e.,

that the restricted status will have been lifted.

The situation presented by this petition is somewhat unique.

The Village has no intention of attempting to hook its proposed

sewer extension to the existing system at this time. It merely

wishes to save the cost of tearing up and replacing a roadway which

would be necessary should they construct the sewer extension at some

time after the restricted status has been lifted. Essentially all

the Village wants to do is lay down, but not connect, some sewer

pipe. Unfortunately, neither the restricted status regulations

---

—2—

nor

the

Agency’s rules clearly address such a situation. There

is

some disagreement between the Agency and the Board as to

exactly what relief Riverton has requested or, indeed, needs.

The Board is of the opinion that this petition is more in the

nature of a permit denial review, but in order to calm this

tempest in a teapot the Board shall construe the petition as a

petition for variance and will waive any procedural defects that

may he involved.

Since it is obvious that no environmental harm can accrue

from an unconnected section of sewer, and since the Village has

shown that construction of the sewer is a reasonable and

cost—saving procedure, the Board will grant the requested

variance. To alleviate one of the problems that the Agency

anticipated when it developed the WPC-5 Guidelines, the problem

of illicit “midnight connections”, the Board will condition the

variance upon an agreement by the Village and its officers that

they will certify to the Agency in writing whether any sewage

whatsoever has been discharged into the sewer, such certification

to be made at six—month intervals.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the Board in this matter.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion w~sadopted

on the

J~1’-

day of

___________,

1980 by a vote of

~

~

Illinois Pollution Control Board