ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 16, 1985

VILLAGE OF ENERGY AND WILLIAMSON

)

COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY,

Petitioners,

v,

)

PCB 84—123

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMEI~TALPROTECTION

AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by ~J.Marlin):

This matter comes before the Board upon the August 10, 1984

filing of a variance petition by the Village of Energy (Village)

for relief from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 309.241(a) to permit the

Williamson County Housing Authority (Authority) to connect a 30

unit housing complex for elderly and disabled people to the

Village’s organically overloaded sewer system, which was placed

on restricted status on May 8, 1980. In an August 22, 1984

Order, the Board joined the Authority as a necessary party and

requested additional information. The Village submitted more

information on October 1, 1984 while the respondent Agency filed

a motion to dismiss on November 7, 1984. The Board denied the

motion on November 8, 1984 and ordered the Village to cure all of

the deficiencies noted in the August 22 Board Order within 45

days. An amended petition was filed on February 19, 1985 by the

Village and the Authority. On April 18, 1985, the Board granted

the Agency’s motion to file its recommendation instanter. The

Agency recommends denial of the requested variance. Hearing was

waived and none was held.

The Authority is constructing a 30 unit housing development

for the elderly and/or handicapped which consists of twenty one—

bedroom units, ten two—bedroom units, and a laundry room. The

development is located on East College Street in Energy,

Williamson County, Illinois. An eight inch sanitary sewer

conveyance system.is needed to connect to the Village’s eight

inch sanitary sewer system. A maximum of 60 people is expected

and the wastewater flow, at 100 gallons per person per day, would

not exceed 6,000 gallons daily average.

The Authority applied for and received a U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grant for the Village of

Energy housing project. No information has been submitted on the

amount of the grant or whether there is a threat of losing this

grant.

64-57

---

2

The Village operates a waste water treatment plant (WWTP)

which consists of a single cell lagoon treatment system under

NPDES Permit No. 1L0023566, issued March 30, 1984. The WWTP has

a design average flow (DAF) of 0.10 million gallons per day (MGD)

and a design maximum flow (DMF) of 0.25 MGD. The design organic

load capacity of the WWTP is 1,000 population equivalents (PE).

The order of discharge from the village lagoon is to several

stripmine lakes, to Hurricane Creek, and finally to the Big Muddy

River.

The present facility is organically overloaded. Agency data

from 1980 shows that the organic loading to the facility is 1,181

PE for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and 1,262 PE for suspended

solids (SS) (Pet,, IEPA itr). The present interim permit limits

for BOD and SS are 50 mg/i and 60 mg/i respectively. The Village

plans to upgrade the DAF to 0,157 MGD (1570 PE) and the DMF to

0.628 £IGD. Once the upgrading is complete, the final permit

limits will be 30 mg/i BOD and 37 mg/i SS, based on a three—stage

lagoon exemption. The amended Facilities Plan provided for

expanding the existing single cell lagoon to a two cell lagoon

with ultra—violet light disinfectant facilities. However, as the

Agency notes, the amended Facilities Plan is now deficient and

will not qualify for Innovative and Alternative (I/A) grant

funding (Ag. Rec. 3). An agreement to construct spray irrigation

facilities on a local golf course was not reached (Id.). The

Village has asked the Agency to reconsider its old facility plan,

for which there is no funding availabie. While the record makes

clear the Village’s intention to upgrade its WWTP and come into

compliance by July 1, 1988, there is no firm compliance plan

schedule.

The Authority has identified and priced two alternative

plans to treat on—site the wastewater from the housing project if

variance is denied and until the restricted status designation is

removed from the village treatment facilities. The first is a

series of septic tanks, a sand filter and chlorination equipment

for temporary treatment. The cost is approximately $36,900 pius

$1,000 annual maintenance cost (2/19/85 Pet,). The second plan

consists of installation of concrete holding tanks and the daily

hauling of the wastewater to other permanent treatment

facilities. The estimated cost is $225 per day or $82,000 per

year (Id.).

In order to reduce water usage at the housing project, the

Authority is requiring water misers in the water closets and flow

restrictors in the shower heads.

Petitioners did not address the environmental impact to the

waterways but only furnished data estimating the contribution of

60 PE to the village treatment facilities, The Agency states

that the present high BOD and SS discharges will overload the

stripmine lakes with nutrients which in turn will limit the

quality of Hurricane Creek (Ag. Rec. 8). The Agency furnished

data from 1981 on the effluent being colored pea green to light

64-58

---

3

brown, clarity as being cloudy to cloudy with visible solids, and

odor being foul to slight (Id.)~

HARDSHIP

Petitioners must show that compliance with the Board’s rules

and regulations would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable

hardship~ Ill, Rev. Stat, 1983, ch~ill

1y~

oar, 1035. The

Authority be~anthe HUD grant process for fac~1ities in the

County in ~

However, the application for the Village units

was filed 11! February of 1981 and was the last one acted on by

HUD, Re:~: ted status was imposed by the Agency in 1~8U, The

Agency s~r~~ letter to the Village informing it of this fact on

May 8, 1~4~:iAttach. to Pet.), The Agency states that it gave

notice of ~TeStricted status in the Board~s Environmental Register

#245 as early as October 6, 1981 (Age. Rec, 4)~ Notice was

repeated on a quarterly basis up to the present time (Id.). Site

acqUisit.iC)fl for the housing project was completed on June 1,

1983, The Village and the Authority applied for a construction

permit on April 4, 1984 which was denied on April. 24, 1984 (Ag.

Rec. 5). The denial letter informed the petitioners that the

village facilities were on restricted status (Ag. Rec. Exh, B),

The denial letter also informed petitioners of the availability

of a conditional installation permit to allow simultaneous

construction of the project with the treatment facility

upgradi!ng, yet no application was

submitted

•~d.) The Authority

decided to proceed without a construction permit and with

knowledge of restricted status,

The

executive director of the

Authority claims that he did not know of the imposition of

restricted status until the summer of 1984, by which time

construction contracts had

already been awarded (Young Affid,,

attach to 2/19/85 Pete), The petitioners have not submitted to

the Board information on what date(s)

construction contracts were

awarded. Meanwhile, an

Agency inspector discovered unpermitted

construction

in progress on October

:3.?

1984 (hg. Rec. 5).

Petitioners

allege hardship because of four reasons (Pet,

4). They allege that the Authority did not

know about restricted

status prior to site acquisition, “lann:ing” and financial

arrangements While this may be

true, it is clear that the

Village knew. That this situation may

not have been

discovered

by or relayed to the Authority is not sufficient

grounds to grant

a variance. Most construction projects of this type require

sewer permits and the Authority should have checked into this

matter, Any hardship resulting from this oversight is a self—

imposed hardship. Petitioners next allege that they are trying

t~fill a void in the elder:Ly housing market~ yet petitioners do

not

argue that

denia:L of variance will cancel their plans.

Thirdly, they

argue that significant adc~.t~.onalenvironmental

impacts will not occur, yet fail

to supoort

~.hio conclusory

statement,

Indeed,

based

on the data lithe

record, the Board

finds that the environmental ilnDact on ~te receiving waterways

would like~y ~e adversely affected by print, of

var:Lance.

Fourthiy~ i,;,~tioners allege that hiphet

utt~e costs will result

64-59

---

because the

Authority would have to provide on—site treatment,

This most likely is a true statement, but economic grounds

alone

are

insufficient to support a variance request. The Board

also

notes that the cost of on~sitetreatment does not appear

to be

prohibitive. Lastly, while petitioners state that they are

trying to

fill a

void in

elderly housing, they conclusorily

allege

that permanent financing of the housing project could

be

lost and fail to provide any support for the statement,

The Board has granted prior variances where the need for

public housing has outweighed the adverse environmental impact of

adding to the sewage load of the existing treatment facility,

Herr in and Hous in Aut horit

of Count of Willia

ms on v

IEPA,

57 PCB 341, (PCB 83~-l69, April 5, 1984); Ci~~2n

~

49 PCB 419 (PCB 80-

163, February 5, 1981); ~

al. v, IEPA, 39 PCB 285 (PCB 80-~83, August 7, 1980). However,

the

petitioners in these cases had all started substantial

project

planning before imposition of restricted status and were

in jeopardy of losing federal assistance if variance was

denied.

Contra,

see ~

43 PCB 299 (PCB 8F-67, September 3, 1981),

The Board has denied variance in similar cases where the

petitioner should have known about the imposition of restricted

status, substantial planning was not started until after its

imposition,

and

there

was no evidence of loss of federal

assistance.~

~

al. v, IEPA~,, 59 PCB 263 (PCB 84~32, August 2, 1984), Herein,

restricted ~tatus was imposed in May of 1980, While the housing

project

may~have been in the preliminary planning stages, no

substantial~planning had taken place. This conclusion is

supported b~’ the lack of a submittal of a HUD grant application

by the Authority until 9 months after imposition of restricted

status

(Young Ltr, attach, to 10/1/84 Pet,), Furthermore, site

acquisition was not until three years after its imposition. The

Agency attempted to guide the petitioners by informing them

of

the availability of a conditional installation permit, yet

petitioners ignored the suggestion and failed to submit an

application.

The Board finds that denial of the variance would not impose

an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship, in any event, any

economic impact does not outweigh the adverse environmental

effect

of adding further discharge to an already overburdened

treatment

facility and likely adverse effect on the receiving

waterways.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter,

64-80

---

5

ORDER

The Village of Energy and Williamson County Housing

Authority are hereby denied variance from 35 Ill. Adm. Code

309. 241.

IT IS SO ORDERED,

I, Dorothy ~ Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was

adopted on the

~

day of

____________________,

1985

by a vote of

(~—o

.

Dorothy M. dunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board