ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    July 31, 1973
    )
    DANVILLE SANITARY DISTRICT
    )
    )
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 73-77
    )
    )
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    )
    )
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Dumelle)
    Petition was filed February
    23,
    1973 by the Danville Sanitary
    District (“District”) for variance from Rules 404(c) and
    404(f)
    and 602(d)3 of the Water Pollution Regulations, until August 1, 1976
    and also requesting an order of the Board be issued requiring the
    District to abate all pollutional discharges from its present plant.
    The Agency filed its recommendation on April 16, 1973 stating
    that the relief requested is from Rules 404(c), 404(f), 602(d) (1)
    and implicitly from Rules 921(d) and 1002. It recommended a grant
    as to Rule 921(d) and denial for the other requests unless certain
    proofs were made.
    Public hearing was held in Danville on April 30 and May 1
    of 1973.
    On June 28 the Board repealed Rule 921(d). On July 19 the
    Board enacted Rule 409 which extends the deadline for the District
    from December 31, 1973 to December 31, 1974 for meeting the effluent
    standards of Rule 404(c). Thus the instant petition is moot with
    respect to these two Rules.
    Rule 404(f) is the effluent standard where dilution ratios
    are less than 1:1. Since the low flow of the Vermilion River is
    given as 20.8 cfs (13.9 MGD) and the most recent average dry weather
    flows to the plant were 8.646 MGD and 8.934
    MGD
    in February and
    March, 1973 respectively (District Ex. 16) it can be seen that the
    1:1 ratio will not be breached for sometime. Thus any violation of
    Rule 404(f) is far off in the future and need not be considered
    in this proceeding.
    Rules 602(d) (3) and 602(d) (1) are left for consideration. These
    are deadlines for storm water treatment and are respectively,
    December 31, 1975, and “the applicable date for improvement of treat-
    ment works” (which is now December 31, 1974). Taking even the
    8—671
    -2-
    earliest of these two dates would still put the prospective violation
    beyond the 12-month variance grant power of the Board and these
    requests are thus premature. We are then left with Rule 1002 for
    consideration. Since nothing is now before us (because of mootness
    or prematurity) no variance is needed from the deadline dates for
    filing of a Project Completion Schedule.
    The petition in this case was well drawn and helpful and the
    Agency’s recommendation was thorough. I-lad it been necessary to
    decide this case upon its merits we would have commended the District
    upon its good faith efforts to determine its waste treatment problems
    and to correct them. We would urge that in future proceedings, the
    District (and, if possible, the Agency) perform biological samplings
    on the Vermilion River bottom to determine the effects
    of
    the susp—
    pended solids discharges from the sewage plant. This seems
    not
    to
    have been done.
    Two matters remain.
    First, the District argues in its brief
    that the variance should be granted as a matter of law because without
    it
    the I)istrict could not ever get a Federal grant.
    We do not
    accept this argument for to do so would largely render this Board’s
    judgments perfunctory in cases involving Federal grants. The entire
    Federal grant system is still evolving under the new Act passed
    October 18, 1972 with guidelines being newly issued and newly
    litigated and we think no one can really delineate at this time
    exactly the relationship between State actions and eligibility
    resulting therefrom for Federal grants.
    Furthermore there has
    been no showing in this case that failure to grant the variance is
    in fact holding up a Federal grant.
    If a genuine showing is made
    of
    this point we would consider it.
    Second, the petitioner
    asks for a Board order to abate its
    pollutional discharges from its existing plant.
    Such an order would
    trigger Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act and permit
    issuance of bonds by the District without referendum.
    We do not
    issue such an order at this time because of two reasons; prematurity
    and scope-of-the-project
    questions.
    We have found that the applicable
    deadline is 17 months off and so no pressing time problems would
    appear to be present.
    A genuine professional disagreement between the
    Agency and the District seems to exist on the necessity for carbon
    columns (R. 243).
    If carbon columns are not needed, then the total
    project cost is reduced $3,000,000. The
    District taxpayers, if their
    share works out to 20,
    would be saved $600,000 plus the entire annual
    operating charge. We would suggest this engineering matter be
    worked
    out by the parties as soon as possible.
    The variance is dismissed without pi.ejudice as being moot
    or premature.
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED.
    8
    .-
    672
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted on the
    ~
    day of July, 1973 by a vote of
    ~—O
    IllinoisC
    ristan
    PollutionL.
    Moffett,
    71)
    ~
    rolrk Board
    8—673

    Back to top