ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February
14, 1974
Apple Orchard Utility Company, Inc., and
)
Village of Bartlett (Intervenor)
Petitioners,
PCB 72—383
VS.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Respondent.
Jeffrey N. Randall, Attorney, on behalf of Apple Orchard
Utility Company, Inc.;
Edward S. Mraz, Attorney, on behalf of Village of Bartlett;
George Wolff and J)ennis Fields, Attorneys, on behalf of
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Seaman):
On September 26, 1972, Apple Orchard Utility Company,
Inc. filed its Petition For Variance. On November 30, 1972,
amendments to the Petition were filed and on January ‘3, 1974,
Petitioner submitted an Amended Petition For Variance which
is substantially different from the original. A hearing
was held in this matter on January 8, 1974, and Respondent and
Petitioner filed their Closing Statements on January 17, 1974
and January 22, 1974, respectively. By an Order of this Board,
dated December 13, 1973, we allowed a motion by the Village
of Bartlett to intervene.
Petitioner is engaged in operating pipelines, mains,
equipment and facilities for the transportation, sale and
delivery of water and the transportation, treatment
and
disposul of domestic sewage, Petitioner~s sewage treatment
plant includes a wet well, raw sewage pumps, a spirogester, a
trickling filter and final clarification and chlorination
equipment (R. 24)
.
Petitioner serves 104 homes in the Apple
Orchard subdivision, located in the Village of Bartlett,
County of Cook, Illinois (R. 24)
.
Industrial wastes are not
treated (R. 23)
.
The design capacity of Petitioner~’ plant
is 260,000 gallons per day (R. 47).
Petitioner states that the metered daily
flows
and average
weekly HOD5 are as follows:
~ —247
—2—
Suspended
Month
Flow (gal.)
BOD (mg/i)
Solids (mg/i)
Dec. 1972
337,800
24.5
1.0
Jan. 1973
619,300
4,6
0.2
Feb. 1973
360,600
21.2
1.0
March 1973
360,900
7.2
0
April 1973
388,000
3.0
0
May 1973
360,000
2.5
0
June 1973
360,000
7.6
0
July 1973
360,000
7.5
0
Aug. 1973
350,000
2.3
0
Sept. 1973
282,500
2.1
0
Oct. 1973
20~,500
2.8
0
Nov. 1973
200,750
0.4
0
Petitioner has a major infiltration problem and the
Record indicates the need for a great deal of maintenance
and remedial work on its facility (R. 179-184). Residents
of the Apple Orchard subdivision, served by Petitioner,
testified that raw sewage frequently backed up into their
basements and yards (R. 204, 209, 213).
Petitioner estimates that the cost of improvements
suggested by the Agency in order to bring its facility
into compliance would be approximately $100,500.00,
The Village of Bartlett, intervenor herein, is in the
process of constructing a new 2.275 MGD wastewater treatment
facility on a site approximately one mile west of Petitioner’s
plant (R. 118). The Bartlett fapility is expected to be
operational by November, 1974 CR. 117). Petitioner states
that it has reached a tentative agreement with the Village
of Bartlett for the purchase of Petitioner’s assets CR. 83).
Petitioner’s Exhibit #2 is a Resolution of the Board of
Trustees of the Village of Bartlett which authorizes the
Village Attorney to draft or review a contract for sale.
This~is, of course, only evidence of an intent to purchase ani
the terms of the contract are not firm.
Petitioner argues, however, that the contract signing
is eminent and that a trunk line will be constructed to
divert the sewage which presently issues into Petitioner’s
plant to the new plant. Petitioner submits, therefore, that
it would be unreasonable for it to bring its facility into
compliance at great expense when its facility will be closed
as soon as the trunk line is completed.
Although the evidence is incomplete, and often contra~
dictory, we are satisfied that there exists a good pos~::~iity
that Petitioner’s operation will soon be phased out ar~ ~iat
the sewage will be diverted to the new facility. Howivir,
a contract for sale has not been signed and we will not
11—248
—3—
speculate as to the terms thereof or whether said terms
will abate the violations. Further, it would be
unwarranted, under the facts before us at present, to,
in effect, order Petitioner to proceed with improvements
which may never be used.
We feel that the most prudent remedy in the instant
cause is to grant a brief variance. It appears that
the critical issues of fact will be resolved shortly.
At that time the parties will be in a position to put
before this Board a clear presentation of the circumstance
which have evolved, Petitioner is put on notice that
should it seek a variance in the future to operate the
subject plant, a clear and definite program for the abatement
of all of the violations caused by its total operation will
be necessary before favorable action by this Board may be
expected.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the Board.
ORDER
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that
Petitioner, Apple Orchard Utility Company, Inc., be granted
a variance to operate its sewage treatment plant for a
period of 90 days from the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Mr. Dumelle and Dr. Odell dissent.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, certify t1~atthe above Opinion and Order
was adopted on this J~j~ day of
~
1974
by a vote of
~
11
—
249