ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February
5,
1981
CITY
O~ABINGDON,
)
KNOX ‘COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY,
)
Petitioners,
v,
)
PCB
80—163
~1~LINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Respondent.
DAVID
R.
MCDONALD,
LUCAS,
BROWN
&
MCDONALD,
APPEARED
ON
BEHArJ~’
OF
PETITIONER
CITY
OF
AJ3INGDON,
MARY
JO
MURRAY,
ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
APPEARED
ON
BET!Ar~P
OF
RESPONDENT.
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
TEE
BOARD
(by
J.
Anderson):
This
matter
comes
before
the
Board
on
the
petition
for
variance filed September
9,
1980 by
the
City
of
Abingdon
(City)
and
Knox
County
Housing
Authority
(KCHA).
Variance
is
requested
from Rules 951(a) and 952(a)
of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution,
in
order to allow the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) to issue sewer construction and operation permits.
The
sewage
treatment
plant
which
is
owned
and
operated
by
the
City
is
currently
on
restricted
status.
Unless
variance
is
granted
and
additional
connections
to
this
plant
are
allowed,
the
KCHA
will
be
unable
to
proceed
with
construction
of
a
planned
50
unit
housing development designed to serve
low income elderly persons.
The development is to be financed with a $2,811,463 grant
frort
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUT)).
This
matter
is being given expedited consideration in light of
the
deadlines conditioning the HUT) grant.
On October 14,
1980 the Agency filed its Recommendation that
variance be denied due in part
to the hydraulic
arid organic
overloading to the plant,
the poor condition of the City’s
sewer
system,
and the City’s history of bad operations of the plant,
which is the subject of an enforcement action currently pending
before the Board
(IEPA v. City
of Abingdon, PCB 80—105,
filed
May
13, 1980).
Petitioners
filed their Response to this Recom-
mendation October 27,
1980,
arid
requested that a hearing he held
on the petition.
The requested hearing was held on December
16,
40—419
2
1980,
and was attended by approximately 30
members
of
the puhl~~,
three of whom made comment.*
The
City of Abingdon, population 4,153,
is located
in
FZriox
County.
The City’s sewage treatment plant
(STP)
was
placed
on
restricted status on January 25,
1977
(Rec.
¶2).
The City ha~
since 1972 sought authorization from its citizens
to i~suebonds
for the upgrading of its STP sanitary and storm sewer systems.
Bond issues in 1972 and 1976 financed some sewer work, hut bond
issuance has not been authorized for STP work.
However, the City
has been certified by the Agency
to participate in the USEPA
construction grant program;
in August,
1980 the City was awarded
a Step
2 design grant
for sewer rehabilitation.
The
curceth ten-
tative timetable calls
for completion of sewer work by November,
1982,
and then submission of
a plan and Step
2 application for
STP upgrading in August,
1985
(Rec.
6).
No
projection has
been
made
to the Board as to when the plant rehabilitation may be
complete.
Although the Board notes
that parties made various
comments on the merits of
the pending enforcememt action against
the City,
these comments must be disregarded for the purposes
of
this variance action.
The restricted status problem notwithstanding,
in 1q77 or
1978 the City began planning for the housing development at
issue in conjunction with the KCHA, the latter having applied
for
arid received the HUT) program reservation of $2,811,463
(T~.
15—17).
The evidence presented tends to indicate that the City’s al1e~ed
hardship, standing alone, would
not justify grant of variance,
despite the City’s introduction at hearing of evidence which would
tend to prove its reliance on Agency actions and
failures
to act
(R.
35—41,
47)
as to removing the restricted status impediment to
new connections.
On
the other hand, the allegations and proofs
of
the KCHA, which has not contributed to the pollution probleos
pinpointed by
the Agency,
are compelling.
The Board has often, hut
most
recently
(in St.
Clair Countj
Housing Author~Z~etal.v.
IEPA,
PCB 80—83,
August
7,
1980;
C. Iber
and
Sons,
Inc., etal.v.
IEPPt,
PCB 80—82, July
24,
1980)
recognrzed
the pressing need for low cost housing
for the elderly.
KCTIA, in the person of its Executive Director, Alice Egan, al-
leged that
HUT) does not reserve construction funds unless
it
is
satisfied that a need for such housing exists in a specific area,
and further alleged that construction funds
for housing for the
elderly are in short supply.
The Board, considering the expe.rienc~
XCHA has gained in similar projects
in Galesburg, and accepts
~C~IA’~
estimation that the additional
loading to the City’s plant if
the
requested hook—ons are allowed would be 55.34 gallons per day
per
~KEThe
close~fhearing, the City indicated its intention
to move the Board in writing to accept an additional exhibit
(R.
126).
The Board has not received this Motion, although an ~get~y
Response was received December
30,
1980.
The Motion if
any, is
therefore denied.
40—420
3
person
if no water saving devices are
used.
(R.
15-30).
In esti.—
mating
total
additional
load
from
the proposed
development
to the
City’s self—admittedly overloaded plant, of the various figures
suggested the Board believes that the 3,575 gpd load
is
the most
credible
(65 persons X
55 gpd).
This amounts
to
an increase o~
four tenths of one percent of the current loading
(R.
120).
The additional
loading would of course affect not only
the
STP, hut the City’s sewer system.
The system is again admittedly
in poor condition,
and surcharging has been complained of
in some
areas
(e.g.
R.
56—60, Resp.
Ex.
5—7).
However,
the evidence an
a whole suggests that the “Pearl Street” sewer to which
the
development would he tributary,
is not subject
to
surcharging
(R.
72—77,
but see R.
108).
The Board
is certainly aware
that any additional
load.
to an
STP and sewer system will have an environmental
impact, particu-
larly in wet weather periods.
However,
the Board finds
that,
balancing the need for
low cost housing
for the elderly,
the
scarcity of construction funds,
and to a lesser degree, the
economic benefit
to the City
as a whole,
against the additional
environmental effects and
the City’s slowness
in correcting
it~
current pollution problems, denial of variance would impose an
arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.
However,
this
is a case
where the balance of equities requires imposition of conditions,
and the commitment of the City
and
KCT-IA to
take actions, outlined
below to minimize the 50 unit development’s additional
loading to
the City’s STP and sewer system,
as
well
as the commitment of
the
City
to upgrade its systems and their operation
arid
maintenance.
Under
these conditions, variance is granted from Rule
962(a)
of
Chapter
3:
Water Pollution; variance
from
Rules
951(a) and
952(a)
is denied as unnecessary.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of
fact and
conclusions of
law in this matter.
ORDER
Petitioners, City of Abingdon and Knox County Housing AuthoriL~,
are hereby granted variance from Rule 962(a) of Chapter
3:
Water
Pollution to allow issuance of sewer construction and operation
permits
for a 50 unit housing development for
the
elderly,
subject
to the following conditions:
1.
Water conserving water closets,
faucets and shower heads
are to be installed in each unit as
it is constructed.
The
Knox
County
Housing
Authority
(KCHA)
and
the Agency shall develop a
schedule
for
a
reasonable
number
of
inspection
tours
of
the
building
by
Agency
personnel
who
are
to
verify
that
water
con-
servation devices have been installed prior to occupancy of the
building.
40—42 1
4
2.
A pump,
if necessary,
and a holding tank with
a capacity
sufficient to store the discharge from all
50 units
for at least
3 days shall be installed and properly maintained by KOTiA.
In
consultation with the Agency and the City,
KCHA
shaI.l develop
an
operation schedule for discharges from the tank to
the
sewer
system.
This
schedule shall be designed to minimize
the loadin~
to
the
system, especially under wet weather conditions.
This
schedule shall be followed until
such time as sewer rehabilitation
work done pursuant to grant funding is completed..
3.
Within 45 days of the date of this Order, representatives
of the City shall submit to
the
Agency
a plan for maintenance
arid
cleaning of the Pearl Street sewer designed to minimize sewer
surcharge,
particularly
in wet weather.
4.
The City shall expeditiously complete sewer rehabilitation
4ork,
and shall expeditiously pursue funding for rehabilitation of
its
sewage treatment plant.
Tn the interim, the
existing sewer
system shall
he operated.
arid
maintained
so as to minimize sewer
surcharge events,
and
the
plant shall be operated and maintained
so as to minimize bypassing and to produce the best practicable
~iualityeffluent.
5.
Within forty—five days of the date of this Order,
each
Petitioner shall execute and
forward to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, Enforcement Programs
(Water Pollution),
2200
Churchill Road, Springfield,
Illinois
62706,
a Certificate of
Acceptance
and
Agreement
to be
bound to all
terms
and.
conditions
of
this variance.
This forty—five day period shall be held
in
abeyance
for any period this matter
is being appealed.
The
~orm
of the certificate
shall
be as
follows:
CERTI~ICATE
I,
(We),
______
____,
having
read
the
Order
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
in
PCB
80—163,
dated
____
____
—,
understand
and
accept
the
said
Order,
realizing
that
such
acceptance
renders
all
terms
and.
con-
ditions thereto binding and enforceable.
Petitioner
~3y: ~u?horf~e~Agent
—
-
flate
40—422
5
IT
IS
‘30
ORDERED.
I,
Christari L. Moffett, Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that~the above Opinion and Order
were
adopted
on
the
~
‘
day
of
~
~
~
1981
by a
vote
of
~
.
(I
Christan L. Moffett, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
40—423