ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March 22, 1971

DECATUR SANITARY DISTRICT

)

)

v.

)

PCB #71—37

)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY)

Opinion

and

Order of the Board (by Mr. Currie):

The District

asks

a one-year extension of the SWB-l4 timetable

for construction of tertiary treatment facilities.

The petition does

not contain the information required by Board Procedural Rule 401,

and it is dismissed.

The petition does not contain an adequate statement of the injury

that would result to the public if the variance were granted.

It is

stated only that the requested extension “would not be injurious”

and would not “reduce the present usefulness” of the receiving stream

Mere conclusions are not adequate; facts underlying the

conclusion

must be alleged.

See City of Jacksonville v. EPA, #70-30 (Jan. 27, 1971).

If the argument is that there is no need for tertiary treatment,

that

is contrary to the findings of the Sanitary Water Board in

adopting the regulation.

The District asks that the Environmental

rrotection Agency investigate the uses and quality of the river.

It

is the job of the petitioner, not of the Agency, to prove the case

for a variance. What are needed are specific allegations as to the

present uses and quality of the

stream and

any other facts the District

believes relevant to its conclusion that a year’s delay will not harm

the public.

r.loreover, there is no adequate allegation as to the reason the

District has delayed so long getting started on this project. The

tertiary treatment requirement has been on the books since 1967, and

the District admits it

was informed of the requirement

that

same

sprin;!, five years in advance of the scheduled date of completion.

We have found in a related case that three years is ample

time

from

conception to con~pletionof sewage treatment facilities (Mississippi

River Seconlary Treatment Dates, $R70—3 (Feb.

3, 1971)). The District

says it dici not even hire a consultant to start work on the matter

until October 1967 and that the consultant did not report until

Decer.ber 1969. Then the District applied for a federal grant.

rts prograz was not “fully defined” until October 1970,

three

and a

half years after the regulation was adopted.

The

drawing of plans

was nevertheless postponed pending the outcome of state

and local

bond elections, and even

now

the submission of complete plans is not

anticipated before January 1972. Plans were due 30 months before

the completion date, or in January, 1970.

is’,

---

The District alleges that the proposed time schedule is “reason-~

able.t’ If the regulation had been adopted in 1971, we would agree;

two years is an acceptable timetable for design and construction of

tertiary facilities of this size. But the regulation was adopted in

1967, and no reasons are given for the District’s inaction for nearly

four years. One cannot qualify for a variance simply by iqnoring the

timetable and starting late, While compliance within the remaininc

time may be impossible, any hardship suffered as a result is,so far

as is alleged, due to the District’s own inaction. To allow a

variance on the basis of the present allegations would establish

the preposterous proposition that the very existence of a violation

is a ground for excusing it.

The petition does not meet the requirements of Rule 401, and

even if all allegations in the petition are true they

do

not entitle

the District to a variance (Rule 405 (b) (1)). For these reasons

no hearing will be held, and the petition is dismissed. A new

petition correcting the above deficiencies may be filed.

This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact, conclusions

of law, and order.

I, Regina B. Ryan, do hereby certify that the above opinion has

been approved this 22nd,

day of ~-~rch

,

1971,

REGINA B.

RYAN

CLERK OF THE BOARD

1

* 360