ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August

5,

1971

QUAD

CITY AREA REGIONAL

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

#

71—97

VILLAGE OF CORDOVA

Marshall R. Monarch,

for Quad City Area Regional Air Pollution Control Board

David DeDoncker of E.

Moline for Village of Cordova

Opinion of t~eBoard

(by Mr.

Currie):

This complaint by the Regional Board seeks an order for

the abatement of

odors

allegedly coming from

two

sewage treat-

ment lagoons operated by~theVillage.

We

find emissions from

the lagoons resulting in air pollution and order

the Villaae

to pursue its corrective program posthaste.

The Village

was

served by septic tanks until recently,

when sewers were constructed and,

pursuant to

a Sanitary Water

Board permit,

the lagoons in question were built on an island

in the Mississippi River

to which the raw sewage

is conveyed

across

a causeway.

The~’permitrequired that the first lagoon

be aerated to promote the breakdown of oxygen-demanding wastes

(Complainant~s

Ex,

6),

and

a later letter informed the Village

of the necessity for sealing the lagoons

to prevent seepage

through the porous soil and

for riprapping

to protect against

flooding

and erosion

(Complainantt s Ex.

7).

Both sealing

and

flood protection, where indicated,

are required by Rules and

Regulations SWB-l

(R,

98).

In direct violation of the permit and of the letter,

the

lagoons were placed~inoperation with neither aerators, seal-

ing,

nor riprap.

The result, predictably, was that the sewage

has received totally inadequate treatment.

The absence of

aeration means

the lagoons are overloaded,

according to the

Villag&s

expert,

by

340

(Complainant~sEx.

2);

the raw sewage

seeps out through the sandy bottom so that the second lagoon

is practically empty and

the first has

too little in

it to

permit successful

aeration

(R,

36—38,

82—83,

102);

the

lagoons

have become anaerobic

(R,

82)

so there is

a most offensive

odor, which when the wind

is wrong makes life most uncomfortable

for the numerous people who

live

a few hundred feet from the lagoons

(R,

4-31).

Efforts to disguise the odor with chemicals have,

according to some witnesses,

had some effect

(R,

30,

102,

149)

2

—

203

---

but

it

is

clear

that

the

odor

problem

remains

serious

(R.

7,

10,

17),

quite

apart

from

the

problems

of

water

pollution

(not

here

charged)

that

are

likely

to

result

from

inadequate

sewage

treatment.

Thus

that

emissions

from

the

lagoons

unreasonably

inter-

fere

with

the

enjoyment

of

life,

and

thus

cause

air

pollution

in

violation

of

the

Environmental

Protection

Act,

is

clear,

and

it

is

not

contested.

The

Village

admits

there

is

an

odor

(R.

25)

and

that

it

did

not

comply

with

the

conditions

of

the

permit

(R.

103).

The

question

is

what

to

do

about

it.

Before

the

present

complaint

was

filed,

the

Village

hired

a

consultant

to

prejare

a

plan

for

correcting

the

situation

(It.

44),

recognizing,

as

Village

testimony

has

it,

that

the

Village

had

been

short-changed

by

its

original

contractor

(It.

146).

Principally

this

plan

(Complainant’s

Ex

•

2,

I)

contemplates

the

sealing

and

aeration

of

the

lagoons,

the

raising

of

the

second

lagoon

and

riprapping

of

exposed

areas

for

flood

and

erosion

control,

and

the

chlorination

of

the

effluent.

The

Village

has

applied

for

state

and

federal

grants

to

help

finance

the

project,

which

is

estimated

to

cost

some

$95,000

(Complainant’s Ex.

7).

It plans to let bids and proceed

with the sealing and

aeration

as

soon

as

the

state

Environmental

Protection

Agency

grants

it

a

permit

to

do

so

but

to

postpone

the

flood

control

measures until

grant

funds

are

available

(It.

147,

150—51).

The

Village

estimated

it

would

receive

a

permit within

six weeks after the June 28 hearing and

that

an additional two months would be

required

for

bids

and construction

(It.

121-22;

Complainant’s

Ex.

7).

This adds up to an October

15 completion date.

There was much testimony as to the

dangers

of

building

sewage

plants

in

flood

plains.

The

Village’s

new

consultant

conceded

that

the

present

location

was

not

ideal,

because

of

its

proximity

both

to

high

water

and

to

residential

areas

(It.

141).

If

the

slate

were

clean

we

might

require

that

the

plant

be

located

elsewhere

•

But

the

uncontradicted

evidence

is

that

to

move

the

plant

now

would

nearly

double

the

project

cost,

adding

an

estimated

$80,000

to

the

bill

(It.

160).

On

the

other

side

of

the

ledger,

we

are

assured

that

the

plant

after

improvements

will

be

two

feet

above

the

hundred-year

flood

(It.

44),

which

affords

a

substantial

degree

of

protection.

It

is

also

relevant

that

to

require

rebuilding

this

plant

elsewhere

would

delay

the

correction

of

the

odor

problem.

We

therefore

shall

order

the

Village

to

correct

the

pre-

sent

situation

by

sealing

and

aerating

its

existing

lagoons

as

soon

as

it

can.

Moreover,

reduction

of

the

present

flood

and

erosion

hazards

is

imperative

if

the

plant

is

to

operate

2—

---

properly and to avoid odor as well as water pollution.

Flood

and erosion control cannot wait for the uncertain grant of

outside funds;

it must be accomplished before the Spring of

1972, when there

is danger of flooding, whether or not grants

are available.

If as the deadline approaches the Village

finds

itself without grants and has exhausted

its statutory

bonding authority

(R,

170),

it may apply to us

for

a supplementary

order

to issue additional bonds notwithstanding

the

limit.

See League of Women Voters

v, North Shore Sanitary District,

#

70—7

(March 31,

1971)

No money penalties were requested,

and despite the egregious nature

of the first consultant~sdefaUlt we do not think

it necessary to decide

whether or not the absence

of notice on this issue precludes our

imposing

such penalties on our own motion.

This opinion constitutes

the Boardts findings of fact and con-

clusions

of law.

ORDER

1.

The Village of Cordova

shall seal

and aerate its sewage

lagoons,

in accordance with Alternate

I of

the April

2,

1971 report of McClure—Leckman Engineering,

as quickly as

is feasible, but in no event later than November

1,

1971.

2.

The Village of Cordova

shall install riprap,raise

the south

lagoon,

and

take other measures

for control of floods and

erosion,

all in accordance with Alternate

I of the above

report,

by April

1,

1972,

so as

to provide at least

two

feet freeboard above the 100—year flood.

3,

Until

the measures required by paragraph

1 of this order

are completed,

the Village of Cordova shall employ chemicals

to mask or reduce odors from its sewage

lagoons.

4.

In the event that federal or state grants are not forth-

coming

in time to enable

the Village

to comply with paragraph

2 of this order,

the Village may apply

to the Board for

a

supplemental order authorizing the issuance of additional

bonds,

if necessary.

The unavailability

of such grants

shall not excuse the Village from timely compliance with

paragraph

2.

I, Regina

E.

Ryan,

Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, ~9rtify

that th~Board~dopted

the above Opinion and Order this~~

da~’~

1971

I

2

—

205