ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February
6,
1975
HERBERT F. BANGERT,
)
Complainant,
vs.
)
PCB 74—295
CITY OF QUINCY,
Respondent.
Herbert F. Bangert, appeared pro se
James N. Keefe, Attorney for Respondent
OPINION AND ORDER OF
THE
BOARD
(by Mr. Henss):
Herbert Bangert,
a resident of Quincy,
Illinois, filed
a
Complaint against City of Quincy alleging that the City had
constructed
a sewer line in violation of municipal codes and
without first securing a construction permit from the Environ-~
mental Protection Agency.
Specifically, Respondent is charged
with installing a sewer line that:
1)
is too shallow,
2)
is
only 6”
in diameter,
3) has no manhole for clean out, and
4)
is not feasible for future connections.
Complainant seeks to
have Respondent reconstruct the sewer in compliance
with
municipal codes and Agency requirements in order to eliminate
defects now burdening Complainant.
Pursuant to Rule 306 of the Board’s Procedural Rules the
Agency was requested to provide additional information on the
issues.
After reviewing the Agency’s comment the Board ruled
that the case be set for public hearing.
Hearing was conducted
on December
4,
1974 in Quincy,
Illinois.
The sewer line
in question is a 245’ section of sanitary
sewer located at
N.
22nd Street between Maple and Sycamore
Streets in Quincy.
Bangert owns two lots on the west side of
N.
22nd.
Street.
His home is located on one of the lots and the
other lot is vacant.
Complainant intends
to develop the unoccupied
lot.
Also on the west side of N. 22nd Street are two homes which
were built in 1972 by a Mr. Sandifer.
In order to provide sanitary
service to the new residences,
Sandifer obtained a permit from the
15 —369
City to construct a
6”
sewer line which would run south on N.
22nd Street about 245’ until it connected to the larger municipal
sewer running east and west on Sycamore Street.
Since it was
necessary to avoid existing 36” and 42” storm sewers on N. 22nd
Street Sand±ferwas permitted to install the sewer line at an
initial depth of
21
to
2 1/2’ or about
6” above the storm sewers.
As the 6” sewer approaches the Sycamore Street sewer it reaches
a final depth of
8’.
Bangert alleges that he constructed an
8” sanitary sewer in
1957 in order to connect his residence to the City sewer system.
He was required to conform to all applicable municipal codes
during construction of the
8”
sewer line.
Because of the enforce-
ment of municipal codes in 1957, Bangert claims that he has been
discriminated against by municipal actions in regards to the 6”
sewer line installed by Sandifer,
Respondent admits that it allowed installation of the 6”
sewer line without an Agency permit.
The reason given for this
violation is that Respondent was not aware until May 15, 1973
of the requirements of Rule 901(b) (2)
of the Water Pollution Control
Regulations.
In December 1972 Bangert complained to Allen VanDeBoe,
Superintendent of Sanitation, that he did not have access
to the
sewer for the lot he intended to improve.
After studying the
problem the Sanitation Committee informed Bangert that he could
build
a house on the lot and connect the sewer.
If connection was
made the City would assume maintenance responsibilities for the
sewer.
Respondent states that it did not hear from Bangert again
until he appeared at a May 10, 1973 Committee meeting to voice
his complaint about the sewer.
The Committee again reviewed the
problem and, on May 11,
1973,
sent Bangert a letter informing him
of the Committee’s decision to allow connection to the sewer.
Since
the lateral sewer would be nearer the surface than normal,
Bangert was required to encase the lateral sewer in concrete where
it was located under pavement.
This requirement was necessary to
prevent future damage that might be caused by vehicular traffic.
Cost for the lateral sewer,
concrete encasement, and any
damage to the roadbed or curbing was to be borne by Bangert.
The
letter also informed Complainant that the lateral sewer would have
to be installed immediately since the City would be resurfacing
N.
22nd Street within two weeks.
A City ordinance prohibits opening
a street for a period of five years after resurfacing.
15—370
—3—
On May 15, 1973 a meeting was held between Bangert, an
EPA employee, and representatives of the City.
Respondent
states that it was at this meeting that it first learned of
the permit requirements.
The next day Respondent submitted
its construction and operating permit application to the
Agency.
Rule 931(a)
of the Water Pollution Control Regulations
authorizes the Agency to adopt “criteria for the design, operation
and maintenance of treatment works and waste water sources”.
Pursuant to this authority the Agency has adopted Recommended
Standards for Sewage Works, Great Lakes--Upper Mississippi River,
Board of State Sanitary Engineers,
Revised Edition 1971
(also
known as the Ten States Standards).
In reviewing Respondent’s operating permit application the
Agency considered three sections of the Ten States Standards
in conjunction with Rule 921(b) of the Water Pollution Control
Regulations.
The three sections considered were:
Section 25
—
No sewer shall be less than
8”
in
diameter
Section 25.1
—
In general, sewers shall be sufficiently
deep so as
to receive sewage from
basements and to prevent freezing
Section 26.1
-
Manholes shall be installed at the end
of each line;
at all changes in grade,
size or alignment;
at all intersections.
Rule 921(b) provides that “the Agency shall not grant any permit...
unless the applicant submits adequate proof that the...sewer...
either conforms
to the design criteria promulgated by the Agency
under Rule 931,
or
is based on such other criteria which the
applicant proves will produce consistently satisfactory results”.
After reviewing data in the permit application, the Agency
concluded that the
6”
sewer would “produce consistently satis-
factory results” and thus conformity with Section
25 requirements
were not deemed necessary for the “as built” sewer.
Section 25.1 does not establish an absolute requirement that
all sewers be constructed to receive sewage from basement sewers.
The Agency interpreted Section 25.1 to mean that circumstances could
exist that make such construction unfeasible.
Existence of the two
storm sewers was,
in the Agency’s opinion, such a “circumstance”
therefore the provisions
of Section 25.1 were waived.
15—371
—4--
As to Section 26.1,
the Agency concluded that the existence
of
a “clean out” was sufficient in this case to allow deviation
from that requirement.
The record shows that the Agency subsequently issued an
operating permit for thiS
6” sewer but denied the construction
permit.
Special conditions attached to the operating permit
required that service not be extended to more than three residences
and
tl~et
the City assume maintenance of the sewer.
The reason
g.
ai~.
~or
denying the construction permit was that the sewer had
already been
constructed and that no modifications were planned.
VanDeBoe testified that two options were avilable to Bangert.
If
a house without basement is constructed, normal engineering
standards would require that fill dirt be brought in to insure
that the top of the foundation
is at least
1 1/2’
above curb level.
Then a lateral sewer could be installed from the house to the 6”
sewer because the
6” sewer is
30” below the surface and the re-
quired slope of 1/2” per foot could be met.
If Complainant desired to construct a house with basement
he would be required to install a force pump since the outlet
from basement drains or sanitary facilities
in the house would
be below the level of the 6”
sewer.
Bangert testified that he
estimated the cost of such pump to be at least $5,000.
Bangert states that he did not install the lateral sewer
because
a plumber had informed him that the sewer could not
adequately handle the waste load.
According. to the Agency
comment this issue was investigated thoroughly
at the time
Respondent’s permit was being reviewed.
This investigation revealed that the sewer, with a slope
of 1.31,
would be able to carry 411,000 gallons of sewage per
day.
Using three houses with four persons per house and a factor
of 100 gallons of sewage per person per day the Agency calculated
an average flow of 1200 gallons per day.
Peak
flow through the
sewer would be 9,600 gallons per day (peaking factor of
8).
Using these figures the Agency concluded that the 6” sewer would
produce consistently satisfactory results.
Conformity with the
8” diameter requirement was not deemed necessary for this
“as
built” sewer.
Complainant argues that one of the houses now served is a
day nursery housing six or more children in addition to the four
residents,
The other house has four residents.
Using these
population figures instead of the Agency’s 4-to-a—house figure,
15—372
—5—
Complainant believes that he cannot be expected to receive
adequate service.
However, when the Agency factors are applied
using Complainant’s population figures,
it can be determined
that the average daily flow from these
two houses would be 1400
gallons and the peak flow would be 11,200 gallons per day.
These
flow rates are substantially less than the capacity of the 6”
sewer.
Therefore,
using Complainant’s own figures
to calculate
flow rates the Board is simply unable to find any basis to support
Complainant’s charge of inadequate capacity.
Complainant next argued that the correct length of the
6”
sewer is 232’
instead of 245’.
No measurements were ~ubmitted
to prove this claim and,
even
if
such evidence existed,
it
appears to have little or no bearing on the issue.
Complainant
claims that the true initial depth is 1.6-2.0 feet instead of
2.0-2.5 feet.
Again,
no basis is shown for this testimony.
Complainant also claims that the 36” and 42” storm sewers are
inadequate, cause water to back up in certain yards, causes
muddy and mosquito infested areas,
are rat harbors and should
be replaced.
Although Complainant claimed to be able to produce
photographs and corroborating testimony to support these two
claims, the record contains only his statement.
Complainant claims that the 6”
sewer does not have
a man-
hole as required.
The record shows that
a “clean out” was pro-
vided.
VanDeBoe testified that the City has several pieces of
equipment capable of maintaining the sewer through the “clean
out” but no problems have been encountered with the sewer to
date which required use of this equipment.
During his testimony Complainant alluded to the existence
of a second permit which contained conditions different from
the permit of record (Respondent Exhibit 4~l). Although the
Hearing Officer allowed Complainant 14 days in which to produce
the second permit,
the only permit
in the record
is that sub-
mitted by Respondent.
A number of other allegations or claims by Respondent are
contained in this record.
Having reviewed these allegations
it is our opinion that they are not directly relevant to the issue
or are not supported by evidence.
The record shows that Respondent installed the sewer in
question withou permit.
However, upon being advised of its
mistake the City promptly moved to correct the mistake.
Upon
receiving the permit application the Agency determined that
criteria deviations
in the sewer were relatively minor and not
15
—373
—6—
substantial enough to require reconstruction.
If the City were required to reconstruct the sewer line
a recently resurfaced street would have tôbe
ripped, up and
traffic
would have to be rerouted.
Cost to the City would be
about $10,000.
The Agency doubts that such reconstruction
would enable a house with basement to be served.
If the
6” sewer were to be installed under the storm
sewers it would apparently have to be at
a depth of
10’
or 11’.
A pump would then be required to lift sewage for a proper
connection with the Sycamore Street sewer main.
The Board has some sympathy for Complainant and can under-
stand his feelings since he was forced to follow the City code
to the letter and his neighbor was not.
However, Complainant
was given two opportunities to connect his lateral sewer to the
6”
sewer and on each occasion declined the opportunity.
We
believe the City’s offer was reasonable in light of the circum-
stances and that there is little else that the City could have
done.
It is the finding of the Board that Respondent did allow
installation of a sewer line without permit in violation of Rule
901(b) (2)
of the Water Pollution Control Regulations.
This
violation was not intentional, did not cause any environmental
damage and was promptly corrected once Respondent was informed
of the error.
Based on the record before us, we believe that Respondent
sought to rectify the mistake in a reasonable manner.
We also
believe that the Agency decision to issue an operating permit for
the sewer was justifiable under the circumstances.
We further
find that the actions of Respondent have not caused discrimination
to Complainant to
a degree that will require the existing sewer
to be reconstructed.
We shall order Respondent to cease and
desist from further violations
of the type found in this proceeding.
ORDER
It is the order of the Pollution Control Board that City of
Quincy shall cease and desist from further violations of Rule
901(b) (2)
of the Water Pollution Control Regulations.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certfy the above Opinion and Order was adopted
this
~4\
day of~Qj1~M~
,
1975 by
a vote of ____to ~
15 —374