ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January 17,

1972

yORK CENTER COMMUNITY COOPERATIVE

v.

)

PCB 72-7

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

Opinion and Order of

the Board

(by Mr.

Currie)

york Center operates

a se~agetreatment plant serving

seventy-three single—family residences

in DuPage County.

It

is alleged that secondary treatment

is now provided;

that additional

treatment

is required by regulations;

that $39,000 would be

required

to provide

it; that eventually York’s small plant

is

likely to be replaced by sewers carrying the wastes

to a large

central plant

for treatment;

and that

in light of the allegedly

small effects of the discharge

on

the receiving stream,

it would

be

a waste

of money

to build improvements now because of the

likelihood of replacement.

The petition asks

a variance

for one

year,

“with the further request that

the

same be extended from

year to year, provided the periodic progress reports indicate

that satisfactory progress

is being made.”

The nub of the difficulty we have with

this petition

is

the

open—ended nature of the request.

“Progress”

is promised, but

there is no suggestion

as to what

the petitioner is

to do to achieve

progress, or what progress means

in this context.

The essence of

a variance in cases of this nature,

as we have said many

times,

is

a program for achieving compliance.

If the petitioner had

come

to us with

a concrete program for phasing out the small

plant

in the context

of

a regionalization program,

we should

have been greatly interested

in exploring

the costs

and benefits

of allowing

a brief period of noncompliance

in the interim.

But

there

is

no such program here, only

a vague hope that some

day

soon somebody--apparently not

this petitioner--will bring about

some regional program whose outlines either

in substance or

in

time

are not even suggested.

We cannot grant

a variance without

a control program,

for to do so

is simoly to give

a permanent

license

to pollute.

There

are inadequate allegations

to support

any such license in this

case;

if the question were

a permanent

exemption from

the treatment requirements we could not say $39,000

was

too high

a price

to pa~y for clean water.

Even

if

all the

3

—

485

---

allegations

of

the petition were proved,

therefore, we could

not grant the variance, and the petition must therefore he dismissed.

PCB Regs,

Ch.

1

(Procedural

Rules)

,

Rule 405(b) (1); Chicago-

Dubuque Foundry Corp.

v.

EPA,

#71-130

(June 28,

1971).

Our sympathy for

the problems

of regionalization

in DuPage

County is

indicated by our recently adopted regulation

#R70-l7

(January

6,

1972)

,

which provide for hearings on regionalization

in each of nine areas

of the

County.

We suggest that York Center

participate

in those hearings

and do what

it can to promote

a

prompt regional solution to its treatment problem,

on the basis

of which

it may be in

a position

to request a variance.

If

an

adequate regionalization plan

is promptly adopted,

and if that

plan promises reasonably prompt solution of York’s treatment

problems, we may

look with more favor on

a request for relief

during

a brief interim.

We cannot consider

a variance, however,

without assurance that something will be done.

People have been talking hopefully of regionalization in

DuPage for many years.

We will not allow mere hopes to become

an excuse

for continued pollution.

The petition is dismissed.

I, Christan Moffett,

Clerk of

the Pollution Control Board,

certify that

the Board adopted the above Opinion and Order

this

/7

day

of January,

L972 by vote of

~

—