ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November 1,

1979

JARVIS,

DE LOACH

&

JOBST

PARTNERSHIP,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 79—148

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Durneile):

Petitioner requested a variance from Rule 962(a) of

Chapter

3: Water Pollution.

The

Agency

recommended that the

variance be granted.

No hearing was held.

On October 18,

1979

the Board granted the variance.

This Opinion supports

the Board’s Order.

Petitioner has requested relief

so that sewer service

can

be

extended

to

a proposed 50 unit housing development

for the elderly in the City of Fairfield.

Construction and

operating permits were

denied by the ~tgencybecause Fairfield

is presently on restricted status.

Petitioner anticipates

that its development will contribute an average sewage flow

of 2100 gallons per day. Petitioner claims that this flow

will be offset by the elimination of housing units which

presently exist on the site and by virtue of the fact that

many of

the development’s elderly inhabitants already live

in Fairfield.

Petitioner points to other reductions

in

water usage in Fairfield which should reduce overall sewage

flow by over 10,

The Fairfield sewer system is subject to excessive

infiltration and inflow.

The Fairfield sewage treatment

plant also needs upgrading with tertiary treatment and

ammonia nitrogen removal facilities.

Sewer rehabilitation

is

expected to be completed by September, 1980 and facility

upgrading by April,

1982.

Petitioner admits that these

facilities

have not been operated properly in the past but

claims that a new properly certified operator has greatly

improved the

situation.

Petitioner states that this development was authorized

by

the

Wayne County Housing Authority after an urgent need

had

been demonstrated.

If

Petitioner

is not allowed to

connect to the Fairfield sewer system,

it will face increased

development costs which would not be covered by Federal

funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

36—39

---

—2—

These increased costs would include $30,000 in capital

costs

and $6,000 per year for operation and maintenance of

a

private wastewater treatment system.

The Agency feels that some of Petitioner’s estimated

flow offsets are suspect

but admits that approximately 30

of

the

residents of the development now live with their

families

in the locale or in houses which will be

razed.

While

the Agency believes that the variance should be granted,

it feels that a grant should be conditioned on compliance by

Fairfield with specific increments of progress

in the city’s

construction grant schedule.

As support for this contention

the Agency cites

the Board’s prior mandate

in Trust #182,

Crawford County State

Bank, Robinson, Illinois,

(Fairfield

Lamp~~M~or ~partment Complex),

and City of Fairfield

v.

EPA,

PCB 76—244,

25 PCB 573, May

26, 1977.

That case

also involved relief from restricted status to provide

for

construction of an apartment complex.

The Agency has asked

that the Board

repeat

its prior Order that Fairfield be

required to operate its

facilities with maximum efficiency.

Although the Agency has evidence that the condition of the

receiving stream has deteriorated in recent years,

and that

Fairfield has been unable to meet any interim effluent

limitations,

the hardship

to the Fairfield community from

denial of a variance outweighs these shortcomings.

The Board concludes that denial of

a variance in this

instance would constitute arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.

While Petitioner should have known about the long standing

designation of restricted

status,

this necessary housing

development should not be jeopardized.

The Board has chosen

not to require Fairfield to comply with its construction

grant schedule as

a condition to this relief because the

city was never joined formally as

a party in this matter.

The Agency’s reliance on the Board’s decision in PCB 76—324

is misplaced since Fairfield was joined with its consent in

that matter.

The Board is confident that Fairfield will

pursue

its obligations to

resolve its sewage treatment

deficiencies.

The standard certification clause was omitted from the

Board’s

final Order because no conditions

or limitations

were attached to the relief.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact

and conclusions

of law in this matter.

I, Christan L.

Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, h~eby certify the

ove Opjnion was adopted

on the

_______

day of

_____

-

,

1979 by a

voteof~~O

_-_

Christan L. Moffett, Cle~kti

Illinois Pollution Control Board

-:~

~

1)