ILL
1 NOlS
POLLUT I ON
CONTROL
BOARD
November
1,
1973
)
LOBDLLL
AND
HALL,
INC.
)
I
iT.
)
PCB
72-511
)
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
)
)
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OP
TIlE
BOARI)
(by
Mr.
Duinelie):
This
is
a petition filed December
26,
1972
for variance from
a
sewer ban imposed by non-certification of the Rockford Sanitary
District.
Hearing was held on March
9,
1973.
Petitioner,
a
land development company, entered into an agreement
in
March,
1972
to
purchase
two
tracts
of
land,
one
approximately
123 acres and
one
7.5
acres
in
Rockford.
Petitioner then employed
a professional
engineering
firm
to prepare
a piat and boundary survey
and to begin construction drawings.
Those plans were completed in the
summer of
1972.
They also obtained construction bids
froiri contractors.
The proposed project would consist of single family dwellings, du-
plexes, and townhouses condominiums
to
be built by other builders on
contract or speculation.
Petitioner sought certification by the Rockford Sanitary District
of a Permit Application for Construction
and Operation of
a proposed
sanitary sewer extension
for the project hut was refused on November
15,
1972.
The District refused to certify Petitioner’s permit appli-
cation because
th.e District knew that
the proposed sewer extension
was tributary to
a sewer interceptor which ~vasdeficient in capacity.
This
refusal
was
based
on
a report
by
the District’s
Consulting
Engineers
entitled
the
itarLDi~trictofRockford
~E~t~era~
and
Sewage
Treatment,
dated
September.
1972.
The
District’s
certifi-
cation
is requir~T~inderRule 912(h)
of the Water Regulations.
The Environmental Protection Agency filed
a recommendation for
denial on January
31,
1973.
It pointed out that
the proposed
developments would he served by the Supplementary Spring Creek
Trunk
Interceptor and the Spring Creek Trunk
Interceptor both of
which
connact
to
the
East
Side
Low Level
Interceptor.
The Agency stated
that
‘a
majority
of
the
East
Side
Low
Level
Interceptor
and
800 lineal
feet
of
the Spring Crek Trunk Interceptor have been designated
as
-2-
‘sewers deficient
in capacity in
1970’
in the September 1972 Greeley
and Hansen Report”.
Peak flows
of 0.391 MCD for the 123 acre tract
and 0.090 MGD for the
7.5 acre tract are estimated by
the Agency.
Lobdell
and Flall
on February 28, 1973 executed an indefinite
waiver in
this variance
(R.3).
In June
the Board was ready to rule
upon the case but Lobdell and Hall’s counsel asked to submit addi-
tional facts
about events which had occurred since the public hearing
on MqTrch 9,
1973.
A Supplemental Petition was subsequently filed
on July
2,
1973.
The Agency on July 25,
1973 filed
a Supplement
to Recommendation.
The petitioner in the new material submitted states that
the
voters of the Sanitary District of Rockford voted 3-1
on April
3,
1973 in favor of
a $15,000,000 referendum to finance
the
local share
of a $75,000,000 construction program over the next
10 years.
Lobdell
and Hall further state
that since the March 9,
1973 public hearing
the City of Rockford. has acted
to remove some
100 storm inlets
which now empty into
the “main sewage line”
of the District by
September
1,
1973.
Lastly, the petitioner states that
five Agency
permits have been obtained on eight sections of sewers to relieve
the East Side Low Level Interceptor and that “construction will
commence immediately upon receipt of the Federal grant.”
The Agency in its Supplement
to Recommendation reaffirms
its denial recommendation made six months earlier.
It points out
that the relief work on the sewer
is contingent on Federal
funds and no definite date for completion
is
available.
It
further discusses
the basement flooding occurring
in the area and
again states that the petitioner’s
developments would aggravate
and/or expand sewer surcharging conditions.
This
case
is somewhat similar
to William
H.
Rogers v.
EPA,
PCB 73-1,
decided May
3,
1973.
In that case, involving the same
sewer system, we granted
a variance only on condition that 48-hour
capacity holding tanks be installed and that truck transport be
used after that
time period if the sewers were still
surcharged.
However, holding tanks were not requested by the petitioner and
thus
me will not order them.
The basement flooding with its attendant
health and electrocution hazards must be balanced against
the
investment to date
in the subdivisions and the need for housing and
labor.
While the petitioner alleges $165,997.17 in expenditures
over and above
the purchase price
(which itself has not been paid)
it should be pointed out that the bulk of this
cost
is
$147,970
in
Lobdell and Hall employee charges against the project at hourly
rates
of $20,
$40,
and $50.
These appear to be very high charges
to make for one’s own employes services
(R.
142-3).
9— 694
-3-
The
~ockfordSanitary District engineer testified that 36 calls on
basement flooding in
38 months were attributable to dry weather sewer
capacity deficiency in the area
to which Lobdell and Hall’s development
would be tributary
(R.
195,
218).
He also stated that holding tanks might
be an acceptable alternative
(R.
241).
No costs on holding tanks appear
in the record.
We feel it best to deny the variance without prejudice at this
time.
The petitioner may refile giving the exact status of Federal
funds for the sewer relief projects; requesting that we consider
holding tanks; investigating the possible use of polymers
to increase
sewer transport capacity;
and detailing the effect of the removal
of the city storm inlets.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings
of facts and
conclusions of law.
ORDER
The variance petition is denied without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Or~erwere adopted on the
~
day of November,
1973 by
a vote of
-
0
9— 695