ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

Ju:Ly

25,

1974

CHICKASAW

HILLS

UTILITY

COMPANY

INC

Petitioner,

PCB

74~59

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROThCT ION

AGENCY,

Respondent

OPINION

AND

ORDER

OF

THE

BOARD

(by

Nr~

Henss)

Chickasaw Hills Utility Company,

lnc. owns and operates a

sewage treatment plant at North Aurora, Il1inois~ The plant

has a design average flow of

0,1

mgd and at

this

time the flow

which is tributary to the plant is approximately 0~037mgth

Chlorinated plant effluent is discharged

to Long Run Creek~ Under

Rule 404(f)

of the

Water Pollution Regulations of Illinois the

effluent standards for this facility are 4

mg/i

BOD,

5 mg/i

suspended solids and 400 fecal coliforms per 100 ml,

Grab

sampling by the Agency indicates that the plant is operating in

violation of Rule

404(f) but EPA field personnel have not ob~

served any adverse environmental impact attributable to Petitioner~s

effiuent~ Plant expansion and upgrading

is currently underway to

achieve compliance with Rule 404(f)

by

September

1, i974~

Petitioner recuests variance from Rule 404(f)

so that sewer

lines may

be

installed to connect to

a proposed subdivision known

as Pebble Creek~

It

is stated that the entrepreneurs in Pebble

Creek have made

a considerable investment and that installation

of

the sanitary sewer is of paramount importance to them~ These

entrepreneurs are not parties

to

this

proceeding~

The Petitioner

utility

company alleges that a failure to install the sewer lines

will

result in a loss of potential customers in the subdivision,

and that such

loss constitutes an unreasonable hardship for the

utility company~

The EPA has informed Petitioner that “the combination

of

the

existing waste load and the anticipated future waste load on the

treatment facilities will place the existing treatment units at

approximately 70

of their design capacity of

1,000

P.:E.

In other

words the existing facilities have sufficient capacity to provide

treatment for approximately another

300 P~E~

We will issue permits

to construct and operate sanitary sewers

to serve only another

300

P E.”

---

—

2~

The record does not reveal how much additional load

Petitioner wishes to receive through the installation of the

new sewer lines.

As far as we know the permits to construct

and operate sanitary sewers to serve an additional

300

P.E.

could very well be adequate.

The Agency takes the position

that it will be proper to issue such a limited permit even

though Petitioner is not in compliance with Rule 404(f), since

Petitioner~sinability to currently meet the requirements of

Rule 404(f)

is not due to hydraulic or organic overload.

The

Agency states that

“

the connections of sewer extensions and

laterals to the system has no effect on the treatment plantts

ability to meet standards,

and the Agency thus believes it is

not precluded from issuing permits

for such facilities by

operation of Rule 921(a)

of Chapter

3”.

Therefore,

the Agency

has issued the necessary permit to install and operate trunk

sewers serving the subdivision and will issue a permit for the

lateral sewers in due course.

Under this set of circumstances we fail to see any arbitrary

or

unreasonable

hardship

to

the

Petitioner.

The

only

hint

of

hardship

has been Petitioner2s claim that it will be unable to

obtain additional customers if the Agency refuses to issue a

permit for the installation of the underground sewer lines.

The

record

indicates

that

this

alleged

hardship

has

not

materialized.

The

EPA

recommends

that

the

variance

be

denied

since

proof

that the

sewage

treatment

plant

is

currently

in

violation

of

Rule 404(f)

is

not

in

itself

sufficient

grounds

for

the

grant

of

a

variance.

We

agree

and

will

deny

the

variance

because

Petitioner

has

failed

to

show

that

it

will

suffer

an

arbitrary

or

unreasonable

hardship.

The record does not indicate that sewer connections to this

facility have been prohibited either by the Agency or by this Board.

The reasons for Petitioner~sinability to meet the standards of

Rule

404(f)

are unclear from the record but will apparently be

overcome through upgrading which is to be completed by September 1,

1974.

Under those circumstances it would be proper to proceed

with the installation of the sewers to the new subdivision.

Con~

struction at the subdivision should be authorized

to proceed

concurrently with the upgrading of the sewage treatment plant and

the installation of sewer mains and laterals.

It is our opinion that the utility company already has what

it requests and has failed to establish its legal right to a

variance.

Therefore,

the variance petition will be denied without

prejudice.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Illinois Pollution Control Board.

13

—

188

---

—3—

ORDER

It is ordered that the variance petition filed herein by

Chickasaw Hills Utility Company,

Inc. be and it is hereby

denied without prejudice.

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

Board,

e eby c

tify the above Opinion and Order was adopted

this

1974 by a vote of _______to~~,

13

—

189