ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August 2, 1984

SPRINGFIELD AND SANGAMON COUNTY

COMMUNITY ACTION, INC. AND    

)

VILLAGE OF WILLIAMSVILLE,

Petitioners,

)

PCB 84—32

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION )

AGENCY,

Respondent.

MR. BRUCE L. CARLSON APPEARED FOR RESPONDENT.

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

This matter comes before the Board upon the filing of a

variance petition by Springfield and Sangamon County Community

Action, Inc. (SSCA) on March 21, 1984. Pursuant to a Board

more information Order dated April 5, 1984, an amended petition

was filed and the Village of Williamsville (Village), Illinois

was made a petitioner. The amended petition filed May 9, 1984

requests variance relief from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 309.241 to

permit sewer connection of a 26 unit apartment complex to the

wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) of the Village, now on

restricted status. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency) filed its recommendation on June 11, 1984 to deny the

requested variance. There have been no objections to the relief

sought and the right to a hearing has been waived.

SSCA is constructing a 26 unit housing development for

the elderly and/or handicapped. The development is located

250 feet north of the intersection of Main and Elkhart Streets

in Williamsvjlle, Sangamon County, Illinois. The development

will require a 261 foot, 6 inch diameter sewer line designed

to discharge an average of 3,900 gallons per day of domestic

sewage.

SSCA, a not—for—profit corporation, has received a loan

from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

totalling $2,097,800 for construction of the above 26 units

in Williamsv-jl.e and other units elsewhere in Sangamon County.

The Villagers WWTP was placed on restricted status by the

Agency on May 1, 1974 due to hydraulic and organic overloading.

It consists of an influent bar screen, Imhoff tank, trickling

filter and a final settling tank. A sludge drying bed and three

59-263

2

sewage bypass lines are also available, The WWTP has a design

average flow (DAF) of 0~07million gallons per day (MGD) and

an organic load of 700 population equivalents (PE). The 26

unit development would add 39 PE to the system. Effluent is

diecharged to Wolf Creek.

A new WWTP is being constructed by the Village which will

include 2 aerated and 1 nonaerated lagoons, 4 intermittent sand

filters and effluent chlorination. The DAF flow will be 0,47

MGD with a PE of 1,625. As of April 23, 1984, the plant was

55 complete 

~--

behind schedule. Petitioners assert that the

new WWTP could be operational as early as September 1984.

Petitioners state that planning for the development began

about December 10, 1980 with a preliminary application to HUD

on May 15, 1981. A construction only permit was issued for

the sewer line by the Agency on September 20, 1983, Construc-

tion of the development began October 1, 1983.

The construction only permit conditions essentially provide

that SSCA may not apply for an operating permit until the Agency

is notified of the completion of construction and that pursuant

to an Agency inspection, that the new WWTP is operating as

designed (Agency Rec. at 5).

The engineering plans call for a 4,000 gallon steel holding

tank to handle the 39 PE daily. Petitioners cite a cost of

$14,697 for installation and $220 per day for service. The

Agency asserts that the cited costs are too high. It cites

costs of between $1,280 through $2~000for the equivalent in

concrete tanks. In any event, the Agency represents that it

was adv.ised by a HtJD representative that the holding tanks

would be provided free by the contractor (Agency Rec. at 7).

Sewage from any holding tanks would have to be trucked daily

to tne Springfield Sanitary District~sWWTP. While Petitioners

cite a cost of $220 per day for service of the tanks, the

petitioners do not state how many truckloads per day would be

required to empty the tanks, A supplemental exhibit to the

amended petition states that the cost would be $60 per truck-

load or, if two or more loads, $55 per truckload.

The petitioners must assess the impact the grant of a

variance would have on the environment. 35 Iii. Mm. Code

104,121. Petitioners fail to do so adequately. Data from

discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) show that the Village

WWTP has flow in e~ccessof its DAF. The Agency asserts that

field observations within the last few years revealed exten—

sive sludge banks downstream of the outfall (Agency Rec. at

6). It appears that sewage has been entering Wolf Creek.

Petitioners must also show that

compliance with t~e Board’s

rules and regulations would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable

hardship. Ill. Rev. Stat, 1983, ch. 111½,

para. 1035. Peti-

tioners assert that 

compliance would impose an arbitrary or

unreasonable hardship because of the costs and the “short

period” of time in which the new WWTP would be

operational.

The economic hardship argument

has insufficient support

the record. As for the time element, the few months alleged

by petitioners until the new WWTP becomes operational in reality

could be much longer. Construction is already months behind

schedule. Additionally SSCA must await

completion of the new

WWTP and the Agency’s seal of approval before SSCA

may apply

1~oran operating permit.

To the extent there is any hardship it is se1f-ii~iposed.

Petitioners knew of restricted status yet unfortunately relied

on a 1974 opinion from

an engineer retained by the Village as

to the definition of restricted status (Exh. E to Am, Pet.)~

The Agency recommendation alleges that petitioners misquote

an Agency letter dated May 16, 1974 (Agency Rec. at 8). How-

ever, this letter is from the engineer for the Village and

therein he states that restricted status “does not prevent the

connection of new individual customers to the existing sewer

systems (emphasis supplied) (Exh. E. to Am. Pet.).” In their

amended petition petitioners have deleted the word “individual”

(Am. Pet. at 2). A housing development is not an individual

customer. In any event, petitioners demonstrate knowledge of

restricted status by the Villag&s letter of December 15, 1981

requestin~a ~waiver” for the Lewer connection.

The Board has granted prior variances where the need for

public housing has outweighed the adverse environmental impact

0±

adding to the sewage load of the existing treatment facility.

£~y,~fHerrinandHousin~Au~~L~f~  

o~f~,~mson

IEPA, PCB 83-169 (April 5, 1984); Cityof Abingdon and 

Knox

County

Housing Authority v. IEPA, 49 PCB 419 (PCB 80163,

February 5, 1981); St. Clair 

Count Housix~gAuthoritY,

at

al.

v,IEPA, 39 ~‘CB285 (PCB 80—83, August 7, 1980). However, the

petitioners in these cases

had all started project planning

before imposition of restricted status and were in 

jeopardy

of losing federal assistance if variance was denied. Contra,

s~e

Builders,Inc.,etai.v.IEPA, 43 PCB 

i99

(PCB 81—67, September 3, 1981).

Herein, project planning was started approximately 6 years

after restricted status was imposed. The record shows that

the petttioents chose to proceed with

construction after 

b~ing

informed that the apartment complex

could not be hooked up 

the W4~TPuntil restricted status was lifted. To the extent

there was a misunderstanding, there

is no evidence in the

record that petitioners attempted to clarify their understanding

of restricted status 

with

the exception of a letter allegedly

sent by the Village to the Agency in 1981. The Agency has no

record of the letter (Agency Rec. at 5). The data from the

DMRs and the Agency~sobservations suggest that bypassing of

raw sewage has been occurring for years. The 

Agency permit

authorizing construction of the sewer line specifically stated

that the line could not be 

used

until the receiving WWTP 

was

upgraded (Id.).

Lastly, there

is

no evidence

of loss of 

federal

assistance if variance is denied.

Noting

that 

the variance request by petitioners is

one

for convenience, the Board 

finds

that 

denial of the variance

would not impose an arbitrary or 

unreasonable hardship where

this convenience does not outweigh the adverse environmental

effect of adding further discharge to an already overburdened

~WTP. The hardship here is self-imposed.

Petitioners are not without relief as they may make full

use of the apartment complex by installing the holding tanks

suggested by the Agency prior to construction. Once the new

WWTP is fully approved by the Agency, SSCA may apply for the

requisite permits.

This

Opinion constitutes the Boardts findings of fact 

and

ccnciusions

of law in this matter.

ORDER

Springfield and Sangamon

County 

Community Action, Inc.

and the Village of Williamsville, I:Liinois are hereby denied

variance from 

Iii. Adm. Code 309.241,

I~IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dorothy 14. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify t~atthe above Opinion and Order was 

adopted

on the 

day of

1984 by a

vote of  

Dorothy 14. ,unn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board