ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August
18,
1988
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD,
ILLINOIS,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 88—113
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by B. Forcade):
On July
22,
1988,
the City of
Springfield,
Illinois,
filed
a
petition
for variance from
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 302.206.
On August
10,
1988,
the Board received an objection
to variance from the
City of Petersburg, Menard County, Illinois,
also an objection
from the Village of Riveuton
filed August
11,
1988,
as well
as
a
third and fourth objection,
filed August 12,
1988,
from the City
of Athens and Talisman Riverboat Excursions.
This matter
is
accepted
for hearing.
The parties,
at hearing, are particularly requested to
address
the following issues,
in that the petition fails
to
provide:
1.
A
request
for
any effective
relief
that
the
Board
can
grant.
Section
302.206
does not actually
set forth
a
regulatory
prohibition,
it
states
a
water
quality
standard.
Activities
which
cause
a
violation
of
water quality
standards are
actually prohibited
by Section
12 of •.the
Environmental Protection
Act and
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 304.105;
2.
A
time
period
or
duration
for
the
variance
at
the
end
of
which
it
will
expire.
Variances are only granted
on
a
temporary
basis
until
compliance
is
achieved.
The
petition
appears
to
request
a
permanent
variance,
which
is
not allowed under Illinois
law;
3.
A
plan
for
ultimate
compliance.
As
stated
in paragraph two above,
a definite
plan
for
compliance
on
a definite time-
table
is
a
prerequisite
to
variance
91—371
—2—
relief.
If removal
of the dam or dams
is
intended as
the ultimate compliance plan,
the petition should
so state;
4.
Any amended petition should,
at
a minimum
contain the following:
A.
a
reasonably
detailed
map
showing
the
location
of
the
proposed
dams,
pump
stations
and
wastewater
dis-
charge points.
A
copy of the rele-
vant portions
of
a
USGS
7.5
minute
map would be acceptable;
B.
a
discussion
of
the
location
and
quantity
of
return
flows
from
Springfield
to the Sangamon River;
C.
the
projected
average
and
maximum
water
demands
in
mgd
contained
in
the 1957,
1965,
1972,
1980,
1981
arid
1986
water
supply
studies
and
the
basic
assumptions
(population,
area
served
and
per
capita
use)
upon
which
they were based;
D.
the
actual
water
demand
in
a
form
comparable to the projections
in the
studies
in
increments
of
no
more
than five years;
E.
a discussion
of the degree
to which
actual
demand
has
met
to
the pro-
jected
demand
of
the
earlier
studies;
F.
a
discussion
of
other
aeration
alternatives,
such
as
pumping
water
from
the
pool
and
allowing
it
to
cascade
or
fall
back
into
the
pool
and mechanical agitators;
G.
the
effect
of maintaining
a minimum
41
cfs discharge over
the
temporary
dams regardless of inflow;
H.
a
more
specific
description
of
voluntary and mandatory conservation
measures
and
their
expected
im-
pact.
Discuss
the effect
of imple-
menting
at
least
some
specific
mandatory measures
at
or
before
the
91—37 2
—3—
time
pumping
from
the
Sangamon
begins;
and
I.
can
the
“water
utility
operational
problems”
mentioned
on
page
two
be
addressed
by
improved
treatment
or
extension
of intake lines?
If
so, at
what cost?
If not, why not?
Finally,
the Board notes that Section 12 of
the Environ-
mental Protection Act,
and
35 Ill. Adm.
Code 304.105 preclude
certain activities that would cause water pollution or violate
water quality standards.
The Board questions whether damming of
a river
is the type of activity that would require variance
relief
and,
if so, how that relief should be structured.
The
parties are required
to provide briefs to the Board
on this issue
not later than September
30,
1988.
Hearing must be scheduled within
14 days of the date of
this
Order
and completed within 60 days of
the date
of this Order.
The
hearing
officer
shall
inform
the
Clerk
of
the
Board
of
the
time and location of
the hearing at least 40 days in advance
of
hearing so that public notice of hearing may
be published.
After
hearing,
the hearing officer shall submit
an exhibit list and all
actual exhibits to the Board within
5 days of the hearing.
Any
briefing schedule shall provide for final
filings as expeditious-
ly as possible and
in no event
later than 70 days from the date
of this Order.
If after appropriate consultation with the parties,
the
parties fail to provide an acceptable hearing date
or
if after an
attempt the hearing officer
is unable to consult with
the
parties,
the hearing officer shall unilaterally set
a hearing
date in conformance with the schedule above.
This schedule will
only provide the Board
a very short time period
to deliberate and
reach
a decision before the due date.
The hearing officer and
the parties are encouraged
to expedite this proceeding as
ir~uch as
possible.
Within
10 days of
accepting this case,
the Hearing Officer
shall
enter
a Hearing Officer Scheduling Order governing
completion of the record.
That Order shall
set a date certain
for each aspect of the case including:
briefing schedule,
hearing date(s), completion of discovery
(if necessary) and pre—
hearing conference
(if necessary).
The Hearing Officer
Scheduling Order may be modified by entry of
a complete new
scheduling order conforming with the time requirements below.
The hearing officer may extend this schedule only on a
waiver
of the decision deadline by the petitioner
and only for
the equivalent or fewer
number of days that the decision deadline
is waived.
Such waivers must
be provided
in writing
to the Clerk
of
the Board.
Any waiver must be
an “open waiver” or
a waiver
of
9 1—373
—4—
decision until
a date certain.
Any waiver shall extend the time
deadline
of Section 104.180 regarding filing the Agency
recommendation by the equivalent number of days,
but in any
circumstance the recommendation must be filed at least 20 days
before the hearing.
Because of requirements regarding the publication
of notice
of hearing,
no scheduled hearing may be cancelled unless
the
petitioner provides an open waiver or a waiver to
a date at least
75 days beyond the date of the motion
to cancel hearing.
This
should allow ample time for
the Board
to republish notice of
hearing and receive transcripts from the hearing before the due
date.
Any order
by the hearing officer
granting cancellation of
hearing shall include a complete new scheduling order with
a new
hearing date at least 40 days
in the future and at least 30 days
prior
to the new due date and the Clerk
of the Board shall
be
promptly informed
of the new schedule.
Because this proceeding
is the type for which the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act sets
a very short statutory deadline
for decisionmaking,
absent a waiver,
the Board will grant
extensions
or modifications only
in unusual circumstances.
Any
such motion must set
forth an alternative schedule for
notice,
hearing,
and final submissions,
as well as the deadline for
decision,
including response time
to such
a motion.
However, no
such motion shall negate the obligation of the hearing officer
to
set a date pursuant to the sixth paragraph of
this Order, and
to
adhere to that Order
until modified.
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
/J’2—day of
_____________________,
1988,
by
a vote
of
~.
~
orothy M.
unn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
91—374