JILLINOT

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

October

11,

1977

COOK CONSTRUCTION

COMPANY,

)

Petitioner,

PCB

77—97

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Pesiondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF

THE

BOARD

(by Mr. Young):

On March

29,

1977,

the Cook Construction Company

(Cook)

filed.

a Petition for

Variance

from

Rules 951 and 952 of the

Pollution Control Board

Water Rules and Regulations:

Chapter

3

(Regulations)

The

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(Agency)

filed its Recommendation

on

May

5,

1977,

in favor of the

variance~ Thereafter,

the

Agency

submitted

a

Motion

for

Leave to Emend

Recommendation

to grant the variance with con-

ditions.

The Petitioner

filed a Motion to Grant Variance

Without a Hearing and a

Limited

Waiver of Decision Period through

October

31, 1977.

On September

1,

1977, the Board granted the

Agency’s and the Petitioner~s

Motions.

Cook Construction

Company

(Cook),

a

partnership

doing

business

in Carterville,

Illinois,

seeks

this

variance

for

four

newlv-~constructedhomes

which

are presently occupied and connected

to the Carterville

sewage treatment plant

(STP).

The

City

of

Carterville

(City)

was placed on restricted status by the Sanitary

Water Board on August

19,

1964

(Rec.

3,

p2).

The STP in

Carterville

was

designed

to

handle

0.3

MGD

(3000 P~E~)and is

subject

to organic overload

(125

of design).

Accordine

to the NPDES

Permit

issued to Carterville,

the STP

:is

required

to meet

30

mg/I

130D

and

40

mq/l

suspended

solids

(TSS)

effluent

concentration levels.

The schedule for compliance

is contingent upon

the

City

obtaining

grant

funds.

At

present,

Carterville

has

been

certified

for

a

Step

I

grant

but

has

not

been

awarded the

grant

money.

The

STP

has

not

been

submitting

discharge

monitoring

reports

as

required

by

the

NPDES

Permit,

but the

Agency

records

indicate

that

Carterville

has

consistently

28-37

---

—2—

exceeded the 30/40 BOD/TSS limits and its discharge violates

downstream water quality

standards

(Rec.

4,

p2).

Carterville

has also continued

to issue sewer connection permits notwith—

standing the restricted status

(Pet.

15, p5)

In 1976

the Petitioner constructed four homes

on a recently-

subdivided parcel and connected four-inch sewer lines

from each

house to a common six—inch sewer extension containing 90°turns

without manholes.

According

to the Agency,

the sewer line violates

the minimum criteria of the”Ten States Standards” which designates

a minimum eight-inch diameter for sewer lines and requires that

manholes be placed at 90°turns

in the line

(Rec.

2,

p1-2)

The Petitioner has

claimed that he was unaware of the permit

requirements and the standards at the time the houses and the

sewer line were constructed.

The record shows that the Petitioner

did not receive formal notice of the permit and construction

violations until

after construction on the houses had begun and

the sewer line was

in the ground

(Pet.

Exh.

C,

Rec. Exh. A).

The Agency’s Amended Recommendation advises the Board to

grant the variance provided that manholes are installed

at 90°

structures

(Am.

Rec.

6, pl-2).

The Board recognizes that the Petitioner was not notified

of the requirements

and the standards before construction com-

menced.

However,

formal notice

is no condition of the Act or its

Regulations and will not alone justify the grant of

a shield from

enforcement proceedings.

Section

35 of the Environmental Protection Act

(Act)

stipulates

that a variance will not be granted unless the petitioner shows

that compliance with the Regulations would impose an arbitrary and

unreasonable hardship.

In this case,

the Petitioner claims that

loss of access to the sanitary sewer facilities would dispossess

the present occupants

of their homes without alternative housing

available to them in the community.

The Petitioner has investigated

the alternative possibility of installing private disposal systems

and has

found that it is

physically impractical and economically

unreasonable

(Pet.

18, p6).

In other cases

the Board has stated that prior construction

in and of itself

is not a sufficient hardship to cause the Board

to grant

a variance.

Jurgens, PCB 75—195,

18 PCB

635.

If the

Petitioner’s hardship were the only issue in this matter, his

hardship would he deemed self-imposed and the variance would be

denied.

However, the Board cannot ignore the other repercussions

which would result from a variance denial.

28-38

---

—3—

The Board agrees

that the owners of the four homes would

suffer unreasonable hardship if they were not allowed continuing

service from the Carterville STP.

It further recognizes that the

alternatives under investiqation are not only unreasonable for

small parcels, but it could create health hazards.

Therefore,

the Board will grant the variance subject to the aforementioned

conditions.

The Board is, however, greatly disturbed by the poor per-

formance of the Carterville sewage treatment plant.

The record

shows

an apparent disregard for the Act,

the Board Rules, and

for the requirements of its permit.

The Board expects that those

charged with operations and maintenance will monitor its dis-

charges, report them,

and to operate its treatment works

in

accordance with the permit requirements.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

The Petitioner, Cook Construction Company, will be granted

a variance from Rules

951 and 952 for Petitioner’s sewer extension

subject to the following conditions:

1.

Petitioner shall submit to the Agency an acceptable set

of plans and specifications prepared by a registered professional

engineer for the sanitary sewer in question so that the Agency

may issue the appropriate permits.

2.

Petitioner will install manholes within 90 days of the issuance

of an Agency permit for the existing six-inch pipe where that

pipe makes 90°turns

if the Agency determines

that manholes are

necessary.

3.

The Agency will issue all necessary permits upon proper

application without requiring the installation of eight—inch pipe

in place of the existing six—inch pipe provided,

however, that

the permit application

is otherwise correct and complete.

4.

This variance

is

limited to four existing connections;

no further connections

to the existing six-inch line will be

allowed.

5.

Within

35 days of the date of this Order, the Petitioner

shall submit to the Manager, Variance Section, Division of Water

Pollution Control, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

2200

Churchill Road,

Springfield,

Illinois,

62706, an executed Certifi-

cation of Acceptance and agreement to be bound

to all terms and

conditions of the variance.

The form of said certification shall

be as follows:

---

—4—

CERTIFICATION

I,

(We),

__________

________

having

read

the Order of the Pollution Control Board in PCB 77-97,

understand

and accept said Order, realizing that such

acceptance renders

all terms and conditions thereto

binding and enforceable.

IT

IS

SO

ORDERED

SIGNED

TITLE

DATE

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

Control Board, hereby certify the a ave Opinion and Order were

adopted on the

/

~

day of

)..L~

)

,

1977 by a

vote of

_____

Illinois Pollution

Board