ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February

8,

1971

CITY OF CARLINVILLE

)

v.

)

#70—87

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

)

Opinion and order of the Board

(by Mr.

Currie):

The City

of Carlinville

is. under the obligation of Rules

and Regulations

SWB—l4 to submit plans

for sewage treatment

plant improvements

by January,

1971 and for chlorination

facilities by July,

1971, and to contract for and complete such

facilities

by specified dates thereafter.

It requests

a variance

from

all these requirements,

We dismiss the petition, on motion

of the Agency,

for failure to allege facts sufficient,

if proved,

to justify the grant

of

a variance.

Board Rule

308 requires that

the petitioner

set forth,

among

other things,

“a description of the

costs

that compliance

would impose on the petitioner

and others”

and “a description

~f the injury that the grant

of the variance would impose on

the public.”

Without these facts the Board obviously cannot

balance the costs and benefits of compliance and cannot deter~

mine whether,

as the

statute requires for

a variance, compliance

would impose an “arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.”

Environ~

ifental Protection Act, section

35.

The present petition, like

that in City of Jacksonville

V.

EPA

(#70—30, decided January

27,

1971),

is fatally deficient

in these respects, even as supplemented

by an amendment filed

in

response

to

the

motion

to dismiss.

The amendment states

only

that

the

cost

of

compliance

would

be

“approximately

$150,000.”

But the $150,000

is evidently the cost of the

needed improvement, whose propriety the City does

not challenge;

what

is needed

is

an allegation

of the

added hardship

that

will be imposed if the SWB—lO deadlines must be met.

The

original petition obscurely refers to

a dispute between

the

City and

its consultants

over terminating their contract

and alleges that

a desired new contractor will not

start work

until the dispute

is

settled.

But proof

of this dispute would

not absolve the

City from its obligation

to stop polluting.

As

for

the other

side of

the

coin,

the amendment

alleges

only

that

granting the variance would

be

harmless because “effluent creek

---

runs through one mile

of pasture land to Macoupin Creek.

Areas

along both creeks uninhabited.”

That

a creek runs through

uninhabited land for

a while does

not justify polluting

it.

The regulations

are based

on the conviction that

specified levels

of treatment

are necessary to assure satisfactory stream conditions

for aquatic life and avoidance of nuisances.

They are not to

be lightly set

aside,

The petition is dismissed without prejudice

to the filing

of a subsequent petition complying with the Rules

of this Board.

This opinion constitutes the Board?s findings of fact,

conclusions

of law, and

order.

I, Regina E.

Ryan, certify that the Boapd has approve~the above

opinion and order of the Board this

x~,

day ~

,

1971.

/

E.

~

~‘

Cerk

of th~Board

I

Dissent

1

—

204