ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August 12, 1976

CITY OF WATSEKA,

)

Petitioner,

V.

)

PCB 76—170

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Young):

This matter comes before the Board on the variance petition

filed June

11,

1976 by the City of Watseka seeking relief from

Rule 602(d) (3)

of Chapter

3:

Water Pollution Rules and Regula-

tions.

The Agency filed

a Recommendation on July 23,

1976;

no

hearing was held in this matter.

Rule 602(d) (3) establishes a compliance date of December

31, 1975 for Rule 602(c)

,

which requires in part that all combined

sewer overflows shall be given sufficient treatment

to prevent

pollution or a violation of applicable water quality standards.

While

the City also seeks relief from the requirements of 602(c)

relative

to its treatment plant bypass, such relief

is not neces-

sary as bypass improvements are controlled by Rule 602 (d) (1)

hence Rule

409.

The City of Watseka

is located in Iroquois County with an

estimated population of 5500 persons.

The City owns and operates

a sewer system which is composed of 20 miles of combined sewers

and

6 miles of sanitary sewers.

The sewage treatment plant is

a

primary—secondary biological plant designed for 0.8 mgd, with an

average dry weather flow of 0.6 mgd which contains no appreciable

quantity of industrial waste.

During periods of wet weather when

the combined sewage flow exceeds

2.0 mgd,

the excess is bypassed

the plant to the Iroquois River, and when the flow in the sewer

system is greatly increased, there are occasional sewer system

overflows.

The City’s NPDES Permit contains a schedule for bringing the

combined sewer overflows into compliance and the schedule keys all

dates

to those after which grant funds have become available.

The

City has had a Step I grant application on file with the Agency

since March

7,

1974, for correcting the sewer system overflow con-

dition and has kept the application current to date.

In January

of

1976,

the Agency advised the City that Step I State grant

assistance was available for completion of facilities planning.

23

—

337

---

—2—

The City has proceeded with the preparation of an Infiltration/

Inflow Analysis which is now complete and ready for submission

to the Agency.

The City alleges that it has complied with all provisions

of its NPDES Permit and has made capital improvements without

grant funds

in an effort to improve operations and discharge a

better quality effluent, i.e.,

installation of monitoring faci-

lities and chlorination equipment.

The City further alleges that

it will comply with the overflow treatment requirements as soon

as grant funds become available but that it would suffer an ar-

bitrary and unreasonable hardship if forced to proceed with the

system improvements prior to obtaining assistance with grant funds.

The Board and the Agency have recognized the fact that many

municipalities and sanitary districts throughout the State have

not met and cannot presently meet the December 31, 1975 compliance

date as set by Rule 602(d) (3).

On December 22,

1975, the Agency

filed an Amended Petition for Regulatory Change

(R75-15) with the

Board specifically requesting that the date for complying with

Rule 602(d)

(3)

be extended, provided a grant application had been

filed before December 31,

1975.

Although the Board has not taken

final action on this proposal, at its May 20,

1976 meeting, the

Board authorized for publication a proposed final draft of the

Rule Change which would adopt the substance of the Agency’s amenda~

tory proposal.

The economic impact hearings have yet to be con-

ducted in this matter.

In view of the foregoing, the Board is disposed to grant

thc

City of Watseka the relief requested.

We believe an arbitrary

and unreasonable hardship would be placed on the City by requirin~~

the massive capital outlays necessary for compliance without first

allowing the City to obtain assistance from existing grant progran:~,

and particularly so when the City would be precluded from any

rein-

bursernent from State/Federal grant funds if the City were to

prcc.~

in advance of

a particular grant award

(The Clinton Sanitary Dis-

trict, PCB

75-498;

The Sanitary District of Elgin, PCB 75—501).

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

cc~

clusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

1.

The City of Watseka is granted variance from the compli~nnn~

date of Rule 602(d) (3)

as it applies to the treatment of combined

sewer overflows required by Rule 602(c)

of the Water Pollution

Rules and Regulations.

Such variance is granted until July 1, 19:,

or until

the Board takes

final action in consideration of the

Agency Regulatory Proposal

(R75-l5), whichever is earlier.

2.

The City is required during this period to maintain optinnn

operating efficiency and convey as much combined sewer flow to

its

plant as

is practicable.

23

—

338

---

—3—

3.

This variance will immediately terminate if the City

is

offered

a grant during this period and the City does not respond

with appropriate action to bring it into compliance.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Control Board, here~certify the above Opinion and Order were

adopted ~the

~4.2

day of

___________________,

1976 by

a

4~n~I~

Christan

L. MoffetV,

erk

Illinois Pollution

trol Board

23

—