ILLINOIS

POLLUTi

ON CONTROL

BOARD

July

19,

1984

VILLAGE

OF

LO!~fl3ARD~.

)

Petitioner,

)

PCB

83—147

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

SUPPLEMENTAL

OPINION

MW

ORDER

OF

THE

BOARD

(by J, Anderson):

In

its

Order

of

April

16,

1984 noting the absence of

specified

exhibits

from

the

Board~s files,

the

Board invited the

filing

of

duplicate

exhibits,

and

stated that “(ulpon completion

of

the

record,

the

Board

will

enter an Order affirming,

reversing,

or

otherwise

amending

its March 21,

1984 Opinion and

Order~ granting

variance~,

The

record is now complete save

possibly

for

Agency

exhibits

which

the

Agency

and

the

Village

stipulate

~are

unidentifiable

and

insignificant

at

this

time”

(Pet~ Production

of

Resp0

Ex~ from

Dec.

7,

1983

Hearing,

filed

May

31,

I9~34,

p~

2

and

Agency

Correction

and

Clarification,

filed

June

12,

1984),

and

for

Citizen~s

Exhibit

1,

Linda

Sullivan~s

photoqraph~

No

oblections

have

been

made

by

any

person

to

the

duplicate

exhibits

as

fiied~

This

Supplemental

Opinion

represents

the

Board~s reconsideration

of

this

matter

on

its

own

moticn~

as

well

as

the

FJoard~s determinations

concerning

motions

filed

after

April

16~

The

Viliage~s

April

25

motion

for

clarification

of

the term

aPhase

II~ is

denied,

insofar

as

it

requests

incorporation

into

the

record

and

the

Order

of

the

map/drawings

filed

June

10.

The

term

~Phase

iI~ as

used

by

the

Board

was

intended

to

have

the

meaning

given

it

by

the

parties

throughout

the

record:

com-

pletion

of

the

Northern

Area

Sanitary

Sewer

Project,

Phase

II,

the

purnose

of

which

is

to

separate

sanitary

and

storm

sewers

aflecting

about

200

acres

of

the

54

inch

combined

sewer

area,

with

an

estimated

completion

date

of

December

31,

1984

and

estitnated

to

cost

$1,582,000

(December

1983

R~ 173—177,

Pet.

Br.

6)

lThile

the

term

~Phase

Ii’~

was

used

in

regard

to

other

orcj?cts~

the

Board

did

not

view

this

as

a

potential

source

of

59-31

---

confusion

‘i

ernrd

I dthates that the Grove Street and

Central ~

rh~

LI, Storm Sewer

projects have been completed.

The reraini q tw

~r~je ts affecting

the 54 inch area, namely the

Glenvioi~an~’~t

rthrL’s

torm

Project and the rebuilding of

43

manholes, ~‘c”.-~

~o b:

~crp’eted

prior

to January 1,

1984

(Dec.

1983

R

2

Incorporated Record

PCB 82~152,Pet,

Ex,

“I”,

Attach

En

‘C~

Aitthugh there

were some disputes

over

the

acres involved

there is no indication

in the record that the

projethe lieted ôlovc have rot been

completed, except for an

ambiguous conr~~

t by

in

Fyler

referring to the manhole project

(Jan.

LI,

1)8” A

E),

~r’he~efor,

based on the assumed completion

of

these other prjectc a~mandated

by court order, the Board

ordered

c no’~tor ‘f the remaining

Phase II sewer system

rehabilitation pi ~e-~ as de3cribed

in

the

record, namely the

Phase

IT

N~FI~r

P~ea

r.4~arySewer

Project.

TIe Boa~ wil

not address all

of the points raised by the

interverors~kp~il23

&

2

motions

for reconsideration and

modifica~Ar

~

t i~y ir thc main,

reassert arguments previously

preserted

‘

U

Board,

t the risk

of oversimplifying the

evidence pr?~ ited b

the p rties,

the Board notes that, in

genera’,

the No li)e focu~d on the

environmental

impact of one

project, ~rir ri’y a’

ci

~ng

the

benefits to the 54 inch combined

sewer area

il t e sto:riwater flow

from the 7,16 acres is diverted

to the

Ci

r

~

torn Sewer

(see

esp0

Jane

1984,

R,

167194),

On the

~tle~ lath

h

r~e~venors~

testimony

and arguments in

significant

at

addr~sthe overall considerations associated

with tIe othat

r

re~trict~d

status,

including the potential

probler c

ii

~d

tI

‘ro

‘a Street

Storm

Sewer by the diverted

storm fo~

f

t

the added sanitary flow and the

diver’ion o~’

rm~aterfrcm the property on the 54 inch combined

sewer

t.

.‘~

a

~e

th, dispute seems to be the value of

tradi~~off an a mittad reduction in the frequency and duration

of ~‘~r

co

i3~red~ininuscule”by the intervenors

(e.g

~,ri1)8

A

~i8, 1~4)

for an admitted increase in the

level

of

B B

a

I se~pedo

solids

(and, presumably the bacterial

~oad)

~r n~ nr~raurableby the petitioner (e.g~Jan,

‘~984A. l2~

7

Inte~iron Al

ftht that no variance should be granted

even

Phane ~I u

e ro~nlet’ad,because his analysis indicates

that firtl’~i

~

~crathlitation will be needed before there is

adequet.

.

ft

~re flooding and surcharging

(Jan,

1984 R.

ill~J4, ~:~ca Nor

~ md Brrefj,

T.~e ~r~ej~

~m~~rledthat, by the end of 1984, assuming the

comp’ ~

o..

Ph.

1

,

588 acres or 75

of the 54 inch combined

seier

arec

w~.

o~emparatel

(Dec.

1983 R.

176).

However,

the

Villa)e a so

..r..cicthad that even if Phase II is completed by

Decem~er3.~ ~

the lrfting of restricted status

is not

59-32

---

assured ~

Ia ~y

Lv~n~

is

iot

likely to happen quickly

(Dec.

1983,

A

69, Ja

.

1~84,I. 223~244), Lombard~sDirector of

Plann~~ga

~q ce

net believe

that, especially with

the

loss th the

at

ait

~

I~ ctowntown can survive until

res~rthLeIst~:a~~

hf ~d without some t~eof joint

publi

r r~v

La.

(Dec

1983,

R.

67, Feb.

1984,

A.

34,)

anctlys”

~t

~vi1e~

~e

as

a

whole,

the

Board

has

deter—

uined

~.

rat,

wn~

‘ad ~e

~er~

are

surcharging

and

backing

up

under

~torn

cothrt~

a’

to

the

degree

evident

in

the

54

inch

combr r

~.

a

‘a

.

~ii

area

either

the

stormwater

diverted

nor

the

seiage

addth

r

i

h~s ~roject

are

going

to

have

more

than

mi”ima~ thfact~ ~

o~ n~gative—on

the

volume

or

concent~a

o~of

ta~-~

1

is

entering

the

basements,

However,

recogr

i~J

i

f~o.ripsed

economic

hardship

to

tie

corrm’i

y

n~

N

~

d~rided

to

grant

variance

while

at

the

same

time

a

1

j

a

~s

t

ade~off

in

basement

ba’kups

of

volum

foi~

~

~.

~i

rid

overall,

an

ur.certain

environmental

1mpact~

I

‘m

I

a

di

tons

including

the

completron

of

Phasa

I~ e~iar

.rai

r

~.a

Un,

wore

designed

to

give

the

Village

a

‘aCd~’U a

.

all

winj

project

hook~ons, bu~ orly

after

coriipleti

r

U

nj

is’ed

ork

expected

to

provide

~ignificant

enthro

~en4

I

recorsid

r

It

av~dence

and

arguments

in

this

matter,

the

Bard

is

not

p~r~thed tlat

its

original

determinathon

was in

error

Fri

~ha

..a

cr

e~

assed

above,

as

well

as

those

exp.~.es~

d

in

U

1

138

Opinion,

the

Board

lereby

affirms

grant

o

a

ii

~

q~j~p~

quo

conditions,

lowevor,

in

a

t

~.

.

A~thn AprIl

24

motior,

the

Board

will

math

ore

clarr±ytnj

~oaification

in

paragraph

5

(to

be

a~

1A

of

rt

Ord~

.o

reflect

common

usage

in

the

recn~d

dale~r

t

ord

‘interceptor,~

and

its

replacemant

‘

acre

a

P’

aioid

confusion,

the

ertire

Order

as

~r

red

March

1

a

riodified,

will

he

sat

forth

~t

the

ror~hr

or

of

hie

J

n~

1

Opinion.)

r

1

y,

.

intervenors~

motions

requiring

~r

ion

)n

~

1i34

di.

Allen

moved

for

disclosure

of

a

itt

n

.~n

act

bctween

Board

members

and

panlies

in

than

at

.aor

~r

a

t

neys,

first

generally,

and

then

I

cc

I’

reo’:~

La.sion

date

in

this

action,

This

is

not

e

rotion

on

qhra,~ r

~c~d

collectively

can

rule,

since

a)

tha

dnvrr~nrcr~~al

P

~a.

.

i

r

‘rot

does

not

provide

the

majority

of

tnt

o

id

ani

aut.

or

.

b~ivote,

require

action

by

Individual

Boara

l,athere,

rio

qaested

disclosure

is

nowhere

mandathi

ii

$e

tio~

.

m~.

~he

motion

must

therefore

be

str~k~n

a-.

~~pI

a

‘a

r

co1.~ecti.ve Board

acUon,

1hc

rcnarr

rg

~

ctr~rs

concern

intervenors~

requests

for

r~.aa.ur

~rc~t

by

ft

I

.~

tar

costs

related

to

provision

of

---

4

exhibr

Ira

\flen rtquested reimbursement of $2.60

for tie x~

..n

~

Ji

~zen’~ Group Exhibit

3,

a duplicate of

whicn was

Il!t

:a1~

~ue

iaj in aesponse to the invitation in

the

Board

(jidur ~

~

Is

Gn May 29, Mn

Fyler requested

reimbirse?~°i~

r

~iic. nileage, parking and phone calls

relate

t~

the Board of a copy of Fyler Ex.

I

at

the Hearing ~

a

s

4

r

~ 20 direct request

(Board records

rndica4e

~

~.

i

~a

Li date cited in the motion is in

error),

and oj

LLie,

e

a,

and copying of a duplicate of this

exhibit

in Lcn~ard

~odispute

(a

claim” of unavailability

betweet

lit

I

i.

~

arc

~Ti

lsoje Attorney.

The motions are

denie~., inn

~

snement

from

the

Village

is

concerned,

as

tne

B

ar~q~a~

a

a

statutory

authority

to

require

payment

of these

ei~t0 Laser

.r~ecircumstances,

Howea

a

Fyler

ntu

they

~

c

The Bo rd

Mrs.

Al en

expenses

purposes

ax

March 20 de

the Boa

“contr

personal

c

Board

ft

$16.50

phone

~

author. aed

250 ncr

¶.bio

Lift

mental

fi ~C.

z

1,

The ~

Ill.

Ad.

conditic

t

3o~~l

~nt

note that both Mrs. Allen and Mr.

~

I

~‘oL

•potktt

expenses

to

replace

materials

which

sLed

o an agent/employee of the Board.

a

c

i

i o~

own motion,

itself reimburse

u

$

60.

As to Mr. Fyler’s request, the

r

a

ted April 17 for his own private

r

a t~aole, Cor~cerningthe claim for the

Li

Fe request of the Hearing Officer,

C

tv

it

30,00 clasmed for time since a

onci.

r~ ~e

ifying a $10 per hour

va

rot authorized or executed

by

the

h w v~r,itself reimburse Mr.

Fyler

a

expenses of $4.50 parking,

$0.75

leage

the csaimed 50 miles at the

a

.

p

a mile rather than the claimed

r. n~

~ anion constitutes the Board~ssupple—

I

and conclusIons of law in this matter.

ORDEAl

f tanbard

is

hereby granted a variance from 35

Li

i

241

a) ~ubj~ct to the following

A.

i

t

p’

nL.

shaft be restricted to two parcels of

ee~crtbedIn Exhibits A and B of the Variarce

it

ceisist of approximately one—half of

~~d by the Lombard streets of Lincoln,

Oar

a

~a

I

nd FL. Charles,

This variance authorizes

a

I.

s

bnvrrorxuental Protection

Agency

(“Agencf)

a

nut

on~trucLionly

permits

for

development

upon

~ r

wuttzJ

of

applications

and

acceptance

of

r

e,

operatian

permits

shall

not

be

issued

arc

Lii ft

Phase Il sewer

system

rehabilitation

is

eat Ic

ear U e

Agency

certifies that it is completed

59Al4

---

5

Storm

water

fran

the

two

parcels

of

£

~

,a

.Iiatl

be

diierted

fr~m

the

54

inch

•

.~

Lie

to

the

separate

storm

sewer

line

a ~cc

f

an

operating

permit.

af

Lie

two

parcels

of

land

shall

be

c..

.

cctal

design

population

equivalent

of

C

w

11

strictly

adhere

to

Lombard

Storm

.1.

N

2231,

which

lints

the runoff rate

t..

-

)bZ

hour.

o

L.

v

ced

to

the

Grove

Street

Storm

Sewer

o

4

1

1

t.

c.

uoe

or

contribute

to

basement

or

surface

(1

B.

I

rcharges from

the

Grove

Street

Storm

-

-

shall

no

be allowed

.o flow into the

~i sewer.

2.

Wi. rir.

tn.. late of this Or~er,the Village

of

“a.

-

c

.itt.

a Certification

0C

Acceptance and

Ag

~

ii

d to all tens

and

condition

of this

vs

I

c.oti n shall be 0ubnitted to the

Aq

Ia.l

Road,

Springfield

Illinois

62706.

V

.

~l

be

held

in

abeyance

ouring

any

e

r is beirg appealed.

ne

forT

of

said

C

F~‘TFICATION

_________________,

hereby accept

and

agree

e

tc... s

and

conditiors

of

the

Order

of

the

Pollut. r

PB 83—147

March

fl

1384.

as

amended

July

Pets’-i

&uthd”~

V

Tatte

r

a.

&ace

59-35

---

6

3.

The

Vi11aq~ ~

Apr11

25,

1984

motion

for

clarification,

as

supp1ement~i

June

10,

1984,

is denied~

4.

The

Alien

J()lv

5,

1984 motion for diclosure is stricken

as

inapproor~ate

ror

collective

Board

action,

5~

The

re~pc:~ivo Allen

and

Fyler motions of May I and May

29,

1984

for

reimbursement

from the Village are denied.

However,

tIi~ Beard

itself

will

reimburse

Mrs. Allen

in the

amount

~f

$2

60

and

Mr.

Fyler in

the

amount of $16.50 for

out~”of~’pocket~xpenses

resulting from provision of

duplicate

exhibrt~

IT

IS

~O

O~L~ED.

B.

Forcalo

t~ssonted

and

J,

D. Dumelle concurred.

I,

Doro

!“

I,

dunn,

Clerk of

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby

certify

that

the

above

Supp~emental

Opinion

and

Order

was~adoPted

on

the~~~~day

~

1984 by a

vote

~hyM.unn,Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board