ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 25,

1984

CITY

OF PARK RIDGE,

)

)

Petitioner,

)

v~

)

PCB 84—140

)

IL~INOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

)

Respondent.

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J. Anderson):

In response to the Board’s October

12,

1984 Order

in this

matter the City of Park Ridge submitted supplemental information

on October 23,

1984 regarding its variance petition.

The

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)

filed

a

recommendation that variance be granted,

subject to certain

conditions.

Unfortunately, neither document supplies sufficient

information

for the Board to make

a judgement on the merits.

First,

the Board cannot determine whether variance is

necessary~ Park Ridge states that it “was advised by Illinois

EPA that

a variance would be required.”

The Agency may be

correct, but the present record includes insufficient information

for the Board to make such a determination.

The Agency does note

that “it is unclear whether Petitioner’s existing system is

in

non-compliance.”

If the system is presently in the grant

process, does the exemption contained in 35

Ill. Adm. Code,

306.306(d)(1,2,3,) apply to excuse any present non—compliance?

If the existing system is,

in

fact,

in compliance,

the City must

explain how the act of raising the outfall elevation would result

in non—compliance necessitating variance relief.

The Board

cannot simply presume that such relief is necessary.

Therefore,

information sufficient to prove the necessity of variance is

required.

Second,

as the Board pointed out in its September

20,

1984

Order,

the question

of ultimate compliance

is at issue.

In

response to that Order,

Park Ridge indicated that ultimate corn-

pliance would be achieved sometime between 1995 and 2000 when the

City~sdischarge will ~irportedly be connected to the Tunnel

and

Reservior Project.

The Agency accepted that estimate.

The

Board’s authority to grant variance relief is limited to five

years

(with possible extensions),

and compliance is expected no

earlier than 11 to 16 years in the future.

The Board notes that

procedures have been established under

35

Iii.

Adm. Code

306,

60-375

---

—2—

Subpart D which allow for exceptions from the combined sewer

overflow rules which are not limited

in duration and

which

may

well

be

a more appropriate mechanism

for

obtaining

the

desired

reliefr

if

such

relief

is,

in

fact,

necessary.

In

such

case

the

City

should

file

a petition

pirsuant

to

those

rules

to

seek

longer term

relief,

Third,

as the Agency points out,

the

City

still

has

not

presented

“any data on the

quality

of

effluent

discharged”

and

only

“a

very

scanty analysis of the environmental impact.”

While

the

City argues that

there

will

be

little

change

in

the

impact

from the present

discharge,

the

Board

is

without

any

information

as to the impact of

the

present

discharge.

For all of these reasons the Board cannot reach a conclusion

on the merits based upon the present record and

is left with only

two alternatives:

to dismiss the proceeding or to attempt to

obtain the relevant information.

The Board chooses the latter

course,

and since requests for further written information have

proven

largely

futile,

the

Board will order this matter to

proceed

to

hearing

at

which

the

Board expects all the issues

raised by the Board to be fully addressed.

The Board again

stresses its concern over the delay involved

in proceeding toward

a

remedy

for

the

basement

sewer

back—ups,

but without adequate

information before

it,

it cannot grant the requested relief.

Finally,

the

Board

notes that the remaining issues which

have

not

been

adequately

discussed

are,

generally,

legal

and

environmental

rather

than

engineering

issues.

The

City

must

provide

sufficient

information

to

establish

that

the

variance

mechanism

:Ls

the

appropriate

one

to

obtain

the

requested

relief

(or choose

an

alternative

mechanism)

and

that any

adverse

environmental

impacts

are heavily outweighed by other

considerations.

Therefore,

the

Board

orders

that

hearing

be scheduled within

15

days

and held within

45

days

of

the

date

of

this

Order.

IT

IS

SO

ORDERED.

Board

Member

~3,Theodore Meyer concurred.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

hereby certify that the

above

Order was adopted on

the

___

P~~__day of

,

1984 by a vote

of______

____

~z

Dorothy

~4.

~nn,

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

60-376