ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    February
    5,
    1981
    CITY
    O~ABINGDON,
    )
    KNOX ‘COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY,
    )
    Petitioners,
    v,
    )
    PCB
    80—163
    ~1~LINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    DAVID
    R.
    MCDONALD,
    LUCAS,
    BROWN
    &
    MCDONALD,
    APPEARED
    ON
    BEHArJ~’
    OF
    PETITIONER
    CITY
    OF
    AJ3INGDON,
    MARY
    JO
    MURRAY,
    ASSISTANT
    ATTORNEY
    GENERAL,
    APPEARED
    ON
    BET!Ar~P
    OF
    RESPONDENT.
    OPINION
    AND
    ORDER
    OF
    TEE
    BOARD
    (by
    J.
    Anderson):
    This
    matter
    comes
    before
    the
    Board
    on
    the
    petition
    for
    variance filed September
    9,
    1980 by
    the
    City
    of
    Abingdon
    (City)
    and
    Knox
    County
    Housing
    Authority
    (KCHA).
    Variance
    is
    requested
    from Rules 951(a) and 952(a)
    of Chapter
    3:
    Water Pollution,
    in
    order to allow the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency) to issue sewer construction and operation permits.
    The
    sewage
    treatment
    plant
    which
    is
    owned
    and
    operated
    by
    the
    City
    is
    currently
    on
    restricted
    status.
    Unless
    variance
    is
    granted
    and
    additional
    connections
    to
    this
    plant
    are
    allowed,
    the
    KCHA
    will
    be
    unable
    to
    proceed
    with
    construction
    of
    a
    planned
    50
    unit
    housing development designed to serve
    low income elderly persons.
    The development is to be financed with a $2,811,463 grant
    frort
    the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
    (HUT)).
    This
    matter
    is being given expedited consideration in light of
    the
    deadlines conditioning the HUT) grant.
    On October 14,
    1980 the Agency filed its Recommendation that
    variance be denied due in part
    to the hydraulic
    arid organic
    overloading to the plant,
    the poor condition of the City’s
    sewer
    system,
    and the City’s history of bad operations of the plant,
    which is the subject of an enforcement action currently pending
    before the Board
    (IEPA v. City
    of Abingdon, PCB 80—105,
    filed
    May
    13, 1980).
    Petitioners
    filed their Response to this Recom-
    mendation October 27,
    1980,
    arid
    requested that a hearing he held
    on the petition.
    The requested hearing was held on December
    16,
    40—419

    2
    1980,
    and was attended by approximately 30
    members
    of
    the puhl~~,
    three of whom made comment.*
    The
    City of Abingdon, population 4,153,
    is located
    in
    FZriox
    County.
    The City’s sewage treatment plant
    (STP)
    was
    placed
    on
    restricted status on January 25,
    1977
    (Rec.
    ¶2).
    The City ha~
    since 1972 sought authorization from its citizens
    to i~suebonds
    for the upgrading of its STP sanitary and storm sewer systems.
    Bond issues in 1972 and 1976 financed some sewer work, hut bond
    issuance has not been authorized for STP work.
    However, the City
    has been certified by the Agency
    to participate in the USEPA
    construction grant program;
    in August,
    1980 the City was awarded
    a Step
    2 design grant
    for sewer rehabilitation.
    The
    curceth ten-
    tative timetable calls
    for completion of sewer work by November,
    1982,
    and then submission of
    a plan and Step
    2 application for
    STP upgrading in August,
    1985
    (Rec.
    6).
    No
    projection has
    been
    made
    to the Board as to when the plant rehabilitation may be
    complete.
    Although the Board notes
    that parties made various
    comments on the merits of
    the pending enforcememt action against
    the City,
    these comments must be disregarded for the purposes
    of
    this variance action.
    The restricted status problem notwithstanding,
    in 1q77 or
    1978 the City began planning for the housing development at
    issue in conjunction with the KCHA, the latter having applied
    for
    arid received the HUT) program reservation of $2,811,463
    (T~.
    15—17).
    The evidence presented tends to indicate that the City’s al1e~ed
    hardship, standing alone, would
    not justify grant of variance,
    despite the City’s introduction at hearing of evidence which would
    tend to prove its reliance on Agency actions and
    failures
    to act
    (R.
    35—41,
    47)
    as to removing the restricted status impediment to
    new connections.
    On
    the other hand, the allegations and proofs
    of
    the KCHA, which has not contributed to the pollution probleos
    pinpointed by
    the Agency,
    are compelling.
    The Board has often, hut
    most
    recently
    (in St.
    Clair Countj
    Housing Author~Z~etal.v.
    IEPA,
    PCB 80—83,
    August
    7,
    1980;
    C. Iber
    and
    Sons,
    Inc., etal.v.
    IEPPt,
    PCB 80—82, July
    24,
    1980)
    recognrzed
    the pressing need for low cost housing
    for the elderly.
    KCTIA, in the person of its Executive Director, Alice Egan, al-
    leged that
    HUT) does not reserve construction funds unless
    it
    is
    satisfied that a need for such housing exists in a specific area,
    and further alleged that construction funds
    for housing for the
    elderly are in short supply.
    The Board, considering the expe.rienc~
    XCHA has gained in similar projects
    in Galesburg, and accepts
    ~C~IA’~
    estimation that the additional
    loading to the City’s plant if
    the
    requested hook—ons are allowed would be 55.34 gallons per day
    per
    ~KEThe
    close~fhearing, the City indicated its intention
    to move the Board in writing to accept an additional exhibit
    (R.
    126).
    The Board has not received this Motion, although an ~get~y
    Response was received December
    30,
    1980.
    The Motion if
    any, is
    therefore denied.
    40—420

    3
    person
    if no water saving devices are
    used.
    (R.
    15-30).
    In esti.—
    mating
    total
    additional
    load
    from
    the proposed
    development
    to the
    City’s self—admittedly overloaded plant, of the various figures
    suggested the Board believes that the 3,575 gpd load
    is
    the most
    credible
    (65 persons X
    55 gpd).
    This amounts
    to
    an increase o~
    four tenths of one percent of the current loading
    (R.
    120).
    The additional
    loading would of course affect not only
    the
    STP, hut the City’s sewer system.
    The system is again admittedly
    in poor condition,
    and surcharging has been complained of
    in some
    areas
    (e.g.
    R.
    56—60, Resp.
    Ex.
    5—7).
    However,
    the evidence an
    a whole suggests that the “Pearl Street” sewer to which
    the
    development would he tributary,
    is not subject
    to
    surcharging
    (R.
    72—77,
    but see R.
    108).
    The Board
    is certainly aware
    that any additional
    load.
    to an
    STP and sewer system will have an environmental
    impact, particu-
    larly in wet weather periods.
    However,
    the Board finds
    that,
    balancing the need for
    low cost housing
    for the elderly,
    the
    scarcity of construction funds,
    and to a lesser degree, the
    economic benefit
    to the City
    as a whole,
    against the additional
    environmental effects and
    the City’s slowness
    in correcting
    it~
    current pollution problems, denial of variance would impose an
    arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.
    However,
    this
    is a case
    where the balance of equities requires imposition of conditions,
    and the commitment of the City
    and
    KCT-IA to
    take actions, outlined
    below to minimize the 50 unit development’s additional
    loading to
    the City’s STP and sewer system,
    as
    well
    as the commitment of
    the
    City
    to upgrade its systems and their operation
    arid
    maintenance.
    Under
    these conditions, variance is granted from Rule
    962(a)
    of
    Chapter
    3:
    Water Pollution; variance
    from
    Rules
    951(a) and
    952(a)
    is denied as unnecessary.
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of
    fact and
    conclusions of
    law in this matter.
    ORDER
    Petitioners, City of Abingdon and Knox County Housing AuthoriL~,
    are hereby granted variance from Rule 962(a) of Chapter
    3:
    Water
    Pollution to allow issuance of sewer construction and operation
    permits
    for a 50 unit housing development for
    the
    elderly,
    subject
    to the following conditions:
    1.
    Water conserving water closets,
    faucets and shower heads
    are to be installed in each unit as
    it is constructed.
    The
    Knox
    County
    Housing
    Authority
    (KCHA)
    and
    the Agency shall develop a
    schedule
    for
    a
    reasonable
    number
    of
    inspection
    tours
    of
    the
    building
    by
    Agency
    personnel
    who
    are
    to
    verify
    that
    water
    con-
    servation devices have been installed prior to occupancy of the
    building.
    40—42 1

    4
    2.
    A pump,
    if necessary,
    and a holding tank with
    a capacity
    sufficient to store the discharge from all
    50 units
    for at least
    3 days shall be installed and properly maintained by KOTiA.
    In
    consultation with the Agency and the City,
    KCHA
    shaI.l develop
    an
    operation schedule for discharges from the tank to
    the
    sewer
    system.
    This
    schedule shall be designed to minimize
    the loadin~
    to
    the
    system, especially under wet weather conditions.
    This
    schedule shall be followed until
    such time as sewer rehabilitation
    work done pursuant to grant funding is completed..
    3.
    Within 45 days of the date of this Order, representatives
    of the City shall submit to
    the
    Agency
    a plan for maintenance
    arid
    cleaning of the Pearl Street sewer designed to minimize sewer
    surcharge,
    particularly
    in wet weather.
    4.
    The City shall expeditiously complete sewer rehabilitation
    4ork,
    and shall expeditiously pursue funding for rehabilitation of
    its
    sewage treatment plant.
    Tn the interim, the
    existing sewer
    system shall
    he operated.
    arid
    maintained
    so as to minimize sewer
    surcharge events,
    and
    the
    plant shall be operated and maintained
    so as to minimize bypassing and to produce the best practicable
    ~iualityeffluent.
    5.
    Within forty—five days of the date of this Order,
    each
    Petitioner shall execute and
    forward to the Illinois Environmental
    Protection Agency, Enforcement Programs
    (Water Pollution),
    2200
    Churchill Road, Springfield,
    Illinois
    62706,
    a Certificate of
    Acceptance
    and
    Agreement
    to be
    bound to all
    terms
    and.
    conditions
    of
    this variance.
    This forty—five day period shall be held
    in
    abeyance
    for any period this matter
    is being appealed.
    The
    ~orm
    of the certificate
    shall
    be as
    follows:
    CERTI~ICATE
    I,
    (We),
    ______
    ____,
    having
    read
    the
    Order
    of
    the
    Illinois
    Pollution
    Control
    Board
    in
    PCB
    80—163,
    dated
    ____
    ____
    —,
    understand
    and
    accept
    the
    said
    Order,
    realizing
    that
    such
    acceptance
    renders
    all
    terms
    and.
    con-
    ditions thereto binding and enforceable.
    Petitioner
    ~3y: ~u?horf~e~Agent
    -
    flate
    40—422

    5
    IT
    IS
    ‘30
    ORDERED.
    I,
    Christari L. Moffett, Clerk of
    the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify that~the above Opinion and Order
    were
    adopted
    on
    the
    ~
    day
    of
    ~
    ~
    ~
    1981
    by a
    vote
    of
    ~
    .
    (I
    Christan L. Moffett, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    40—423

    Back to top