ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 15,

1976

THE

CITY

OF

DECATUR

AND

THE

SANITARY

DISTRICT

OF

DECATUR,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB

76—185

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

24,

1976

by

the

City

of Decatur and the Sanitary Dis-

trict

of

Decatur

seeking

relief

from

Rule

602(d)

(3)

of

Chapter

3:

Water Pollution ~ules

and Regulations.

On March

11, 1976,

the

Board dismissed

a prior petition from the Petitioners on the

grounds that it was inadequate.

The Agency filed a Recominendation

on August 12,

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.

The City of Decatur owns and operates combined sewers that

when built in the later part of the 19th century and the early

party of this century, discharged directly to the closest stream.

After the creation of the Sanitary District in 1917,

the first

District construction consisted of installing interceptor sewers

to divert the dry weather flow of the combined sewers to the

wil

S

Lewd te

r

L

red

Linen

p

I

.i

n t

wfl

C~

1

I

:;~~tint

k’I’

(‘Oils

L rite

t.

i

oii

There are presently six overflow points on the collection system

which

discharge

combined

sewage durinq periods of wet weather

to either Spring Creek or the Sangamon River.

The City and the District submit that they are diligently

proceeding

in their attempts to comply with the overflow treat-

ment requirements.

In March of 1976,

the District was offered

and accepted

a Federal Step

I Grant which assists

in paying the

costs

of

preparing

a

Facilities

Plan.

The

District

further

sub-

mits

that

it

will

continue

to

timely

take

all

pre—grant

and

post-

grant actions

as may be required by the grant program.

23— 517

---

—2—

The Petitioners allege,

that to require immediate compliance,

without the use of existing grant funds and without the assistance

of the Facilities Plan now being prepared,

would impose an arbi-

trary and unreasonable hardship upon its citizens.

At the present time the District is

in the final stages of

completing an eleven million dollar expansion of its treatment

plant.

Petitioners allege that they have recently completed the

most extensive sewer infiltration prevention program in this State

by improving sewer facilities and by compelling property owners to

make necessary repairs or disconnections.

The City also has

underway a thirty—two million dollar storm water construction pro-

gram which includes improvements and separations in certain corn—

bined sewer areas.

The Agency and the Board have recognized the fact that many

municipalities and sanitary districts throughout the State have

not met and cannot presently meet the 602(d) (3)

compliance date.

On December 22,

1975, the Agency filed an Amended Petition for

Regulatory Change

(R75—15) with the Board specifically requesting

the compliance date be extended, provided the discharger has applied

for a grant and

is diligently pursuing the grant program.

Although

the Board has not taken final action on this proposal, at its :lay

20,

1976 meeting,

the Board authorized for publication

a proposed

final draft of the Rule Change which would adopt the substance a

the Agency’s proposal.

The economic impact hearings were conduct

on August 26, and September

1,

1976.

In view of the foregoing,

the Board is disposed to grant the

District the relief requested.

We believe an arbitrary and un-

reasonable hardship

would

be placed on the Petitioners by requiring

the capital outlays necessary for compliance without first allowing

the Petitioners

to obtain assistance from existing grant programs,

and particularly so when they would he precluded from any reimburse-

ment from State/Federal grant funds

if they were to proceed in

advance of a particular grant award

(The Clinton Sanitary District,

PCB 75-498; The Sanitary District of Elgin, PCB 75—501)

Thi~

()pi

n

toil

conStL

Lutes

Lhe

Ro~nd’ s

i

11(1

i nqs

c)I

deL

Llfl(I

C0ilC~

USIOI1S

of:

i

dW

in

this ma

L

Le r

ORDER

1.

The City of Decatur and the Sanitary District of Decatur

are granted variance from the compliance date for the treatment

of combined sewer overflows as established by Rule 602(d) (3)

of

the Water Pollution Rules and Regulations.

Such variance is granted

until July

1,

1977, or until the Board takes final action in con-

sideration of Regulatory Proposal R75-l5, whichever is earlier.

23

—

518

---

—3—

2.

During

the

period

of

this

variance

the

Petitioners

shall

maintain

optimum

plant

operating

efficiency

and

convey

as

much

combined

sewer

flow

to

its

plant

as

is

practicable.

3.

This

variance

will

immediately

terminate

if

the

Petitioners

are offered

a State or Federal grant during this period and they do

not respond with appropriate action to bring the combined sewer

system into compliance.

IT

IS SO ORDERED.

I,

Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Con-

trol Board, hereby certify

he

hove Opinion and Order were adopted

on the

J~~’4~’

day of~1

,

1976 by a vote of

$~.o

Illinois Pollution