ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March

31,

1971

League

of

Women

Voters

of

)

Illinois,

et

al.

)

PCB

70—7

)

70—12

v.

)

70—13

)

70—14

North

Shore

Sanitary

District

)

Opinion

of

the

Board

(by

Br.

Kissel):

On September 1, 1970, the League of Women Voters of the

State

of

Illinois

(the “League”), a not-for-profit corporation organized under

the laws of the State of Illinois, filed a complaint with the Pollution

Control Board against the North Shore

Sanitary

District

(the “District”)

alleging that the District was polluting the waters of Lake Xlichigan

by discharging inadequately treated effluent directly into Lake flichigan

from the District’s sevaae treatnant olants.

Specifically, the complaint

alleged that the District was causinrr violations of the water auality

standards found in Sanitary Water Board regulation S’iB-7 in regard to

bacteria, azwr1onia, nitrogen, nethyleno blue active substance

(flBAS),

phosphates, obnoxious odors, dissolved oxycten, chlorides, and filter-

able residue

(total dissolved solids); that the District’s ill-treated

discharqes had caused the closing of beach’3s and otherw±seinterfered

with legitimatc water uses nrotected by S!~B—7;and th•~tthe District

was

not

adhering

to

the

schedule

for

construction

of

improvements

prescribed

in

SWB-7.

The

comolaint

asked

this

Board

to

require

the

District

to

correct

the

stated

violations.

On

October

.1,

1970,

the

District filed a Snecial and Limited Aopearance contendina that the

Board did not have jurisdiction of this matter since there was already

pending a case in the Circuit Court of Lake County filed by the Attorney

General of the State of Illinois coverinq, allegedly, the same issues

as those covered by the League’s con~lair~t

with this Bcard.

This motion

was denied by the Board in a unanimous opinion (Lea~uoof Women Voters

v. North Shore Sanitary District,

f70-7, Oct.

8,

1970).

The District

then filed an answer essentially denying each and every allegation of

the complaint.

On Sentember 24,

1970,

ZIrs.

Loraine

Facktor,

!ir.

S

Sirs. Emanuel

Winston and lr.

and Mrs. Paul Brown, representing the Committee to Save

Highland Park, filed coz~laintsagainst the North Shore Sanitary District

alleging that the District had vIolated various sections of the Environ-

mental Protection Act in the ooeration of its Clavey Road sewage

treatment plants by causing nollution both of the air and cf the Skokie

Ditch, into which thfl plant’s effluent is discharged.

These complain-

ants sought a cease and desist order against the unlawful manner of

i-ae

---

operation

at

Clavey

Road

and

against

the

expansion

of

the

plant

to

accon’nodate

additional

sewage

•

The

Board,

in

another

unanimous

opinion,

ruled

that

the

cases

would

not be dismissed since they were

neither

du~licitous

nor

frivolous

(Facktor,

et

al.

v.

North

Shore

Sanitary District, 470—12, Oct.

8, 1970).

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(the ‘Agency”) filed

a petition for leave to intervene on October 26; this was qranted on

the proviso that

it

would

not

require

further

postponement

of

the

hearing.

The Agency joined in the conolaints of both parties, alleging

water pollution of Lake Michigan in violation not only of SWB-7 but

of the Sanitary Water Board Act and of the Environmental Protection

Act (Sections 12(a), 12(c)) as well, and air oollution from the Clavey

Road site in violation of the Environmental Protection Act, Section

9(a).

The Board ordered the complaints of all the carties

(the League,

the

Facktors,

et

al.,

and

the

Agency)

consolidated

for

the

nurposes

of the hearing.

The District filed answers to the comolaints of

Facktor, et aX. and the Agency essentially denying the allegations

contained therein, and

arguing

once

more

that

the

Facktor

complaints

were duplicitous.

A pre-hearing conference was held at which all of the parties

were present or represented by counsel.

The issues of the case were

discussed, and as a result of that conference certain stioulations were

made.

These appear in the record as the agreed tnon exhibits

(EXHIBITS

A through D).

A hearing on all complaints was set and held beginning

on November 9,

1970, in the Public Library in Waukegan, Illinois.

OR6ANIZATXON OF DISTRICT

The District was established by referendum oursuant to the Sanitary

District Act of 1911, Chapter 42, Ill. Rev. Stat. §27699, et seq.

As amended, Section 277 of that

Act

sets

forth

the

purpose

for

which

the

District

was

to

be

organized;

that

is,

the

“xreservation

of

the

public

health.”

The

Board

of

trustees,

the

governing

authorities

of

the

District,

were

and

are

apnointed

to

their

posts

by

the

Circuit

Court of Lake County and are charged, under Section 283 of that Act,

with the responsibility, inter alia,

to provide for sewaqe disposal

and to “save and preserve the water suvplisd to the inhabitants of

(the) district from conta.-nirtation.”

Under the statute the District

has powers to raise money by taxes, connection and inspection charges,

special assessments, and the issuance of both revenue and general

obligation bonds.

In conformance with scme of its responsibilities,

the District has

adopted

an

Ordinance

governing

its

operations.

(Exhibit

“A”)

1-370

---

OPERATION OF DISTRICT

The District’s boundaries extend fron the Lake-Cook County line

on the south to the Wisconsin border on the north; from Lake Michigan

on the east to an irregular line on the west which line aonroximately

falls on the Tn—State Toll Road.

The District operates sewage

treatment

facilities

at

the

following

sites:

1.

Waukegan;

2.

North Chicago;

3.

Lake

Bluff;

4.

Lake Forest;

5.

Highland Park lakefront sites at Park Avenue, Ravine Drive

and Cary Avenue; and

6.

Clavey Road.

All of the plants operated by the District discharqe their effluent

into Lake Nichigan, except for the Clavey Road plant, which discharges

its effluent into the Skokie drainage ditch and which eventually finds

its way into the Skokie lagoons, then to Chicago River and finally to

the Illinois River basin.

The District is responsible for the construction, operation and

maintenance of the interceotor sewers which carry the wasto from

city-owned and ooerated sewer lines to the District’s otants.

Sewage

fron Winthrop Harbor,

Zion, and Waukogan in the northeastern part of

the District is conveyed by various intercentors to the ;‘!aukegan

treatment plant.

The North Chicago, Lake Bluff, Lake Forest and three

Highland Park lakefront plants receive dor.estic and industrial wastes

from the respective cities or villages in which they are located.

Sewage from the Skokie Valley and from the Waukegan-Gurnee Industrial

Park flows to the

Clavey

Road

plant.

The Waukegan and Clavey Road plants provide orimary and secondary

treatment of the wastes by the means of an activated sludge orocess.

This type of secondary treatment is a biological process which is in-

tended

to

renove

approximately

90

of

the

biochemical

oxygen

demand

(DOD)

and

susnended

solids

of

the

waste

received

by

the

plant.

The

North

Chicago

plant

is

also

a

secondary

plant,

but

it emDloys a

trickling filter.

This process is less efficient than the activated

sludge process; however,

it should still renove anproximately 85

of

the DOD

and

suspended

solids

of the waste received.

The other plants

of the District are all primary plants only, in which sewage is

retained

in

tanks

so

that

the

heavier

suspended

materials

settle

to

the

bottom

and

are

removed.

Primary

process

removed

on

the

average

about

35

of

the

oxygen-demanding

wastes

and

suspended

solids

received

(R.

167).

Year-round

disinfection

of

effluents

is

provided

at

all

plants

(R.

131).

1 —371

---

OVERLOADS AND BYPASSES

Each of

the

plants, with the exception of the Ravine Drive plant

in Highland

Park

CR.

142), has far exceeded its capacity and,

therefore,

is incapable

of treating the sewage it receives to even the degree

for which

it

was designed.

The Waukegan plant,

for example, whose

capacity is

10 million gallons per day,

is now handling flows

of

uo

to

22 million gallons ocr day.

Exoressed in other terms, it is capable

of handling

a population

equivalent of 99,500, yet

on

the average, it

is handling

the wastes of

a ponulation equivalent

of

150,000

to 180,000,

and only

2/3 of those wastes

receive secondary

treatment.

An examination

of

the monthly reports submitted by

the District

to the Agency covering

the operation of

the Waukegan plant will demonstrate the effectiveness,

or rather lack

of it,

of the treatment process.

The reports were

made

a part of the record as Agency Exhibits

38

through

57,

As an

examole,

in

August

1970,

the ol~nt received on the average

of l3~l5

million gallons per day

of waste.

Of that,

10 million gallons per day

received secondary

treatment and

the remaining received only primary

treatment.

The average total pounds of BOD which entered Lake Michigan

was 16,545 with

the total

of 512,910 rounds entering

the Lake during

that month.

As

a result

of

this overloading,

fecal matter,

ground vege-

tables

and grease were observed being discharged

into the Lake from

this plant.

The District’s other plants,

except Ravine Drive, have similar

problems.

The Lake Forest plant,

for

example,

is designed to treat

a flow of

1.2 million gallons per day and yet the average flow for

the summers of

1969 and

1970 was 1.92 million gallons ncr day.

Thus all but one of the District’s plants

are grievously overloaded

even under normal conditions.

The District also suffers

from an

especially serious stormwater problem.

Because of combined sewers,

infiltration,

and illegally connected downsnouts, during heavy rains

raw sewage is discharged directly

to the lake through automatic bypasses

at

the six smaller lakefront plants

and

at Water Street

in Waukegan.

The District estimates that

ten

to fifteen percent of

its flow and three

tb five percent of

its BOD loading are bypassed and

that bynasses occur

about

18 to 20 times each year.

Bypass flows are given chlorination

on the run at

the lakefront olants,

but not at Water Street

(B.

148-50,

534,

535—37,

540).

EFFECT

ON LAKE

The effect of

the inadequate treatment

of,

wastes

on Lake

Michigan

was graphically demonstrated by

the evidence introduced

into the

record.

The first of these graphic demonstrations was

the Shore Water

Renort

of

the

Sanitary

W~’terBoard.

This Report

covered studies

and sampling

done by

the

Sanitary Water

Board on

a number of criteria set forth

1

—

372

---

in SWB-7.

The report, which

was

confirmed in several important respects

by the independent samoling

done

by

the

City

of

Chicago

under

the

direction

of Mr. James Vaughn

(R. 96-122), concluded that the shore water of

Lake Michigan did not meet the criteria covering bacteria, floating

solids and debris,

total phosphates, ammonia nitrogen and MBAS.

All

of these substances are associated with the discharge of inadequately

treated sewaqe,

and

since the District (except for very small plants

at Great Lakes Naval Training Center and Fort Sheridan) has

‘the

only

facilities within many miles

trzhich receive and surrnosedly treat human

wastes

CR. 122—30),

it must be concluded that the degradation of the

shore water of Lake Michigan is due directly to

the

District’s discharges.

The District made no eftort to disorove this conclusion.

It is perhaps

important to discuss some of the renorted conclusions in the Sanitary

Water Board re9ort as they compare with the present water quality stand-

ards:

I.

Bacteria—

The

standard

found

In

SWB—7

is

in terms of total

coliforms and fecal streotococci.

It is considered satisfactory under

SWB—7

if total coiiforms are loss than 1000 and focal strec is less

than 100/mi; however,

if the

total coliforns are from

1000

to 5000/ni

then

the

fecal

strep

must

be

less

than

20/nil.

The

Sanitary

Water

Board

found

that

using

the

five

saitole

basis

57

of

the

sartclcs failed to

meet

the

standard..

In

the

Hiqhland

Park

area,

for

ex3rle,

100

of

the

groups-of—five

averres

failQd

to

moot

the

standard.

The

highest

nuther

of

individual

sa~nics e,:ceedina

the

standard

were

found

ir~the

area

in

which

the

District

discharges

i~s wastes.

2.

FLoatina

solids

and

debris—

The

standard

recuires

that

the

shore wat~?be “sdEitantj~l1vfre&Thf flcatinq solids ~nd debris other

than

from

natural

socrces.

~

Sewa’.~c-

roleted scun, grease and vn7otable

particles

were

found

floating

at

iarious

tines

the

beaches

wore

.rtspected,

and

the

recort

concluded

that

the

standard

had

not

been

met.

3.

Total

ohos,hntes’•

The

standard

in

SVYB—7,

at

the

time

of

the

Sanitary

iiTEer

Board

Survey,

was

that

total

nhosnhato

shall

not

exceed

0.03

mg/i.

on

an

annual

averaqe

basis

and

0.04

mg/i

on

a

single

value

or average.

65

of the samples taken exceeded the standard with the

highest readings being

taken in the area of

the

Lake used by the

District.

In fact, samples indicated a total phosohate content of as

high as 3.9 mg/i, which is

90 times higher than the standard would allow.

The

standard has since been tightened

by

this

Board

to 0.02 mg/i (#R70-6,

Jar..

6, 1971).

4.

MBAS-

The

standard

is

that

PIDAS

shall not exceed 0.02 mg/i

on an annual average ana 3.05 mg/i on a sinale value or average.

Yet

this standard was exceeded in 62

of the sroles taken, with some samples

in the area of the District reaching 0.6 mq/l, which is

30 tines higher

than that permitted by the standard.

1

—373

---

5.

Ammonia nitrc;en- The standard is that ammonia nitrogen shall

not exceed 0.05 mg/l on an annuai average and .12 mg/i on a single value

or average.

Again the report concludes that this standard was not met;

21

of the samples exceeded it.

The maximum values were found in the

area of the Lake used by the District.

The

Shore

Water

report

was

not

the

only

indication

of

the

pollution

of

the

shore

water

of

Lake

MIchigan

at

or near the discharges of the

District’s plants.

The Lake

County Health Officer directly connected

high coliform counts and eventual beach closings to the inadequateiy

treated sewa~eof the DIstrIct.

Using the criterIa for bacteria estab-

lished In SWB—7, he fcund durIng his sampling in the summer of i970

that between

36

and 635 of the samples exceeded the established

Standard (League Exhibit

22

).

This was sufficient for the Lake

County Health Departzent to recommend closing of the beaches along the

ncrth shore because the waters were unsafe to use for bathing.

The

people of IllInois were thus deprived of the use of a great natural

resource.

The recently provided (and as yet incomplete) chlorination of effluents

and of most bypass flows

s not a complete answer to the public health

problem.

In

tile

fIrst

place, the DIstrict’s o”n wItness testIfIed that

a 3ignlficant

x’etenticn

tins

is necessary for chlorinatIon to have its

full effect, and that bypass flows

are

chlcrlnated tiithout beIng retaIned

at all

(B.

540).

In c.di!ticn, Dr. Friedrich Delnhardt, Chairman of

tht Depart:iont of

:icrobLalc~yat Presb,’terlan—St.

Luke’s 1edicsl Center

and

Professor

of

Xln’a~lolc:-:

at

the

UnIversIty

of

IllInois,

testIfied

that

viruses

such

as

tht;

responsible

for

hepatitIs

can

be

carried

by

sewage,

can

survive

In

water

for

extendcd

periods,

and

that

normai

chl3rlnation

processes

are a

‘joke”

aa

to

the

elImInatIon

of

viruses

(B.

3l8~3’I).

ChlorInation

can,

however,

be

somewhat

e!’tective

if

the

sewage

is

gIven

proper

secondary

treat~ent

because

that

degree

of

treaunent

removes

a

barrIer

frc~ the

vIrus

(protonaceous

matter)

which

allows

the

later—added

&~lcrSne t~ have

a

greater

effect

on

killIng

the

bacterIa

In

the

waste

water.

As Dr. Doinhardt puts It:

“...If

we

treat

sewage

In

such

a

way

that

our

bacterial

counts

at the end, whIch

Is n~cheasier to monitor

than

the content

of viruses, is wIthin the accepted ievels, then we have reasonable

assurance that at the sane tine we have reduced the contamination

of these viruses as good as

we

know how to do today.”

(K.

334).

Perhaps the most disturbing testimony we received was that of

Dr. Eugene Stoermer, whose scIentIfic studies of algal populatIons

indicate a progressIve degradation of the Lake due to advancing

euthrophication (the Increasing concentration of phosphorus and other

•2trients), and whose soberIng conciuslon is that “we have reachfl

;ne point that Is crlticai in the hIstory of Lake Michigan” (K.

49).

A:nong Dr. Stoermer’s observations were the following:

I

—

174

---

“Progressively over the years we have seen reduction in the near—

shore area, particularly in the southern basin of Lake Michigan, of

the species that are indicative of hIgh—quality water.

“In addition, we have seen sequentially the introduction of

species which previously did not occur in Lake Michigan and which in

other areas do occur under conditions of degraded water quality.

“In our most

recent

samples,

.

.

.

we had good evidence that

these nuisance—creating species are invading and, in fact, have

invaded the entire Lake MichIgan basin.

.

.

.

In. some of the most

affected areas, we have now found essentially

all

of

the

species

that

have similarly been introduced Lnto Lake Erie during its well—

documented decline.

“Sewage effluents of course, carry undesirable levels of nutrIents

which cause the effects I have been talking about thIs morning.

(B.

48—J$9,

81).”

Dr. Stoermer further testitied that phosphate levels in the Waukegan

plant

effluent

are

“a~proecIr.ately a

hundred

to

a

thousand

tines

as

grttat”

as

levela

at

waich

‘we

have

been

able

to

stimulate

growth”

and

to achieve

“very,

very

pron~unc~&d

effects”

(it.

7k,

58).

“If

there

is

a

significant

amount

of

effluent,

this

high

pttosphoru~ level

coming

In,

It

undoubtedly

would

have

some

effect

on

the

productIvity

of

the

lake”

(U.

75).

HIs

concftsion

;:as

that

any

course

of

actIon

affording

a

realIstic

cnance

of

:ttreservins

the

lake

In

some

sort

of

a

reasonable,

usable

condition”

would

“probably

demand

essentially

the

removal

of

all

of

these

effluents,

of

the

controUable

effluents”

(B.

8~t-85).

And

perhaps

the

fInal

evIdence

that

the

Lake

is

in

fact

ir~a

polluted

.3tate

was

this

admIssIon

in

the

Dictrlct’s

brief:

“The

Brief

of

the

League

of

Wc’aen

Voters

contains

an

accurate

and

frightening

de4crlption

of

the

cordL~ion of

Lake

MichIgan.”

(DistrIct

Brief,

p.

2).

THE

LAW

It is obvious from the facts recIted above that. Inadequately

treated discharges by the DIstrict into Lake MichIgan, particularly

with regard to tacteria, viruses, phosphates,

ar.d unsIghtly floatIng

matter,, have created a nulaanct and rendered the waters

cit the Lake

injurious to public health and to domestIc, recreatIonal, and other

legitimate uses, and therefore that the DIstrIct has caused and continues

to. cause water pollutIon in violatIon

of

section 12(a) of the Environments

Protection Act, as defined by aect~.on3(n).

It is equally obvious

that these discharzes have also caused violations of the nu~erioal

!tandards of Rules and Reg.ziatlons SWB—7, Rule 1.02, with respect to

1-375

---

bacteria, floating solids and debris, total phosphates, ammonia

nitrogen, and MBAS.

These standards are preserved in force by section

119

of the Act.

As we have held before, the provision of specific

numerical standards for certain pollutants does not repeal the statutory

prohibition

against water pollution, which applies whether or not

the regulatIons themselves are also violated.

See Springfield Sanitary

District v.

EPA,

S 70—32

(Jan 27, 1971); EPA v. Commonwealth Edison

Co.,

5 70—4

(Feb.

17, 1971); EPA

v. Granite City Steel Co.,

0 70—34

(Mar.

17, 1971).

The statute makes this clear by forbidding any

dis—

charse that either causes pollution or violates the regulations

(section

12(a)).

tIe have also held that the specIfic time schedules in the

regulations allowing delayed construction of certain facilities do

not postpone the effective dates of the water quality standards them-

selves but constitute the equivalent of a variance allowing additional

time only for the construction of named facilities.

Springfield Sanitary

District v.

EPA, supra.

Rule 1.06 of SWB—7 specifically Imposes a number of treatment

requirements in addition to the abovementioned crIteria governing

the quality of the Lake Itself.

First and most fundamental is the

requiremenç of “substantIally complete removal of settleable solids”

and “removal of all floating dcbriz,” par.

lOb.

This requirement of

adequate primary treatment

has

obvIously

been

violated

as

a

result

of

tno overicaded condItIons at several Dlctrlct plants.

Paracraph

lAb requires secondary treatrent of at least 85

remotal effIcIency

and an effluent conta~.nIngno nore than 30 mg/i of DOD and

35

of suspended

sc~lids. 2everal of the plants provIde no secondary treatment at all;

the other two lakefront plants fall to provIde

the ie~recof treatment

required or to meet the

effluent

standards because they are grossly

overloaded.

Paragraph lIb also requres disinfection “with up to

1 ms/i of chlorine residual In the effluent to reduce colltorm to

5,000 or :ess, wnere necessary,” and both primary treatment and chlorinatio

of bypass flows “If necessary.”

We find, on the basis of the evIdence in this case, that effluent

chlorination to the degree specLfie& In thIs ptragraph of SWB—7 and both

prImary

treatment

and

chlorInatIon of oypasses are “necessary.”

Effluent

chlorlnatlor.

Is

now

beIng

provided,

out

to

what

degree

is

not

clear;

bypasses

are

not given primary treatment as required, and the

Water Street bypass is not chlorinated either.

Under

paragraph

9,

combIned—sewer and bypass problems are to be

corrected “at the time of Inprove~entor expansion of treatment works”;

and nutrIent reductIon, “:~heredeemed necessary,” is to be accomplished

by September 20, 1977, cr “as practical technical methods are developed.”

We deem nutrIent reduction necessary,

In light of Dr. Stoermer’s

testinony,

and

we

have

added

a

new

paragraph

lOd

to

forbid

the

dis-

charge of effluents contaInIng more than 1 mg/i of phosphorus after

December 31, 1971.

As we round in the rule—making proceeding leading to

thIs amendment, practical methods for phosphorus reduction to the pre-

scribed level are readily available.

---

Incorporated

in SWB—7 was

a timetable prescribing dates

by

which

certain

of

the

improvements

required

to

achieve

ccmpliance

with

the

treatment

standards

were

required

to

be

completed.

For

the

five

small

lakefront

plants

seccndary

treatment

was

to

be

provided,

or

the

effluent

diverted

from

the

Lake

(the

“preferred

solution”)

by

July,

1972.

For

North

Chicago,

plant

expansion

(this

~as

the

only

plant

overloaded

according

to

the

outdated

1960

figures

on

which

the

schedule

was

based)

was

required

by

July,

1972,

and

nutrient

reduction

by

July,

1977.

For

Waukegan,

the

only

provision

was

for

both

stormwater

control

and

nutrient

reduction

by

July,

1977

any

other

violations,

since

no

extension

was

provided,

were

to

be

corrected

at

once.

The

Lake

Michigan

Enforcement

Conference,

composed

of

officials

of

the

four

lake

states

and

of

the

federal

government,

recommended

that

each

state

require

compliance

with

existing

water

quality

standards

(such

as

SWB—7)

and

~hosphoras

control

by

December

of

1972.

See

USFWQA,

Water

Pollution

Problems

of

Lake

yich~gan

and

Tributaries

(Revised

June

1968),

p.

68.

In

response

the

Technical

Secretary

of

the

Sanitary

Water

Beard,

which

had

adorted

and

which

administered

the

standards

at

that

time,

wrote

to

the

Conference

with

the

following

new

dates

for

compliance

with

the

Conference

recommendations

(letter

of

C.

W.

Kiassen

to

:~:urray Stein,

:iay

5,

1970,

in

Prooeedin~s

of

Lake

Michigan Enforcement Conference,

Third

Session,

vol.

3,

p.

10)4):

Lake

Forest

.anuary,

1971

Lake Bluff

August,

1971

North

Chicago

)

Cary

Avel

)

Ravine Drive

)

October, 1971

Park Avenue

)

Waukegan

August,

1972

In

light

of

the

somewhat

informal

procedures

of

the

Sanitary

Water

Board,

it

is

not

possible

from

the

present

record

to

dotermine

whether

this

revised

schedule,

submitted

with

the

obvious

intention

of

complying

with

the

Conference

recommendation

to

accelerate

the

d~.te for

nutrient

removal,

was

a

binding

amendment

of

the

SWB—7

schedules

with

regard

to

nutrients,

storrm:ater

control,

and

secondary

treatment

or

only

a

declaration

of

the

expected

time

of

actual

compliance.

In

any

event

the

present

regulations

require

phosphate

control

by

December

31,

1971,

secondary

treatment

by

no

later

than

July,

1972,

and

stormv:ater

control

at

the

time

of

improvement

or

expansion

of

existing

works.

As

the

District

puts

it

in

its

Brief

(o.

13),

“the

Sanitary

District

has

been

ordered

out

of

Lake

Michigan

by

1972.”

1nadd~

Ion

to

final

completion

deadlines,

SWB—7

(Rule

1.06,

rar.

12)

wisely

)rescr~bes

interim

dates

for

the

submission

of

plans

(18 months

1

—

377

---

before the completion date in the case of facilities serving less

than

10,000 population equivalents and 30 months in other cases) and for

the award of constructIon contracts

(12 and 21 months respectively).

Even of the basis of the July 1972 dates, which may have been accelerated

by later action of the Sanitary Water Board in response to the Conference,

the date for submissIon of the last plans was December, 1970, and the

District testified that this date would not be entirely met.

(ft.

530).

Moreover, the dates do not cover everything the District is required to

do to comply with the standards; the Waukegan plant, for example, has

been in flat violation of the effluent standards ever since their

adoption, with no grace period provided by the schedule.

Moreover,

these

schedules,

•like

variances

granted

under

the

present

Environmental

Protection Act, were based on information available at the

time and are

subject to later revisIon in light of additional facts such~as have

been presented at this hearing.

Consequently we hold that the present discharges from the North

Shore Sanitary District are in violation of the construction schedules

of SWB—7; of the effluent standards and water quality standards in those

same regulations; and of the water—pollution section of the statute

it-

self, in the numerous respects spelled out above.

THE DISTRICT’S PLANS

This opinion’has shown that the District must take action to avoid

bypasse* of raw sewage, to put an end to the discharge of primary

effluent, to expand its overloaded secondary facilities, to reduce its

phosphate discharges, and tb stop violating the water quality standards

with regard to bacteria, ammonia, and MBAS.

The next question is what

the Board can order the District to do in order to correct these serious

violations.

To determIne what remedy to impose it is necessary

to trace through the recent history of the District and the constraints

imposed on it or on itself.

In 1963 the engineering consultants to the District reported that

the Waukegan, North ChIcago, Lake Bluff, Cary Road and Park Avenue

plants as well as Clavey Road, had all reached or exceeded their load

capacity.

In the interim, no addiflonal facilities have been constructed

to these plants, other than providing chlorination facilities for by-

pass discharges to Lake MichIgan.

With the increase of population in

the North Shore area since 1963, a resultant increase in wastewater flow

has occurred without a corresponding increase in sewage treatment plant

capacity.

From 1963 to 1968 the North Shore Sanitary District, though

cognizant of its inadequate treatment of wastes, was advised by the

Technical Secretary of the Illinois

Sanitary

Water

Board

to

postpone

the expansion of the Clavey Road plant.

The Secretary indicated that

he

had

been

informed

that, because of the Lake Michigan dlversion.case

then

before

the

United

States

Supreme

Court,

it

might

prejudice

Illinois’

position in that case if the District were to increase its diversion be—

fore the decision was handed down.

That case has since been resolved.

Wisconsin v. Illinois, 388 U.S.

1—378

---

In November, 1967, the District

engineers

presented

a

planto

the

District

Trustees setting forth the various alternatives for sewage

treatment

improvements.

Chief

among

their recommendations was that

the District ultimatel~’plan to divert all effluent from the Lake.

In May, 1968,

the Division of Waterways, State of Illinois, granted

the District’s request for an allocation of water from Lake Michigan

on an extended basis.

In order to finance the new facilities necessary

to remove Its effluent from the Lake,

the District asked the people in

May 1968 to approve a bond issue of

$35

mIllion.

It was approved.

According to the record, this exhausted the bonding power of the District

at that time.

Other

moneyS

became available to the District in the form

of an $11.55 million grant from the federal government.

With this money

in hand the District asked Its en&ineers ;o desIgn facilities to meet

St’S—i and the recommendations of the Lake ~~ichIganEnforcement

Conference.

We will be back to the money issue later.

The District’s current plans have been neaty

summarized in its

brief

(p.

14):

The project of the Sanitary District Includes additions to

the Waukegan plant, includIng construction of tertiary facilIties

and a retention basin.

.

.

.

When funds are available the

effluent from the new ~aukegan Plant will

be pumped to the

Des Flames River.

The District will build a new tertiary

treatment plant on the Des Plaines RIver at Gurnee.

The North

Chicago

Treatment Plant will be retaIned for p:’e—treatment and

these wastes wfll be pumped

to

the

new

plant

at

Gurnee.

The Clavey Road Plant In HIghland Park Will be expanded from its

present capacity of

11.5 mIllIon gallons ~er da~to approximately

19 million gallons per day.

The thrce small lakef~’ontplants

in Highland Park and the Lake Bluff and Lake Yorest plants will

be abandoned and that effluent pthtped to the Clavey Road plant

for treatment.

The Clavey Road effluent will then be pumped

West to the Des Plalnes River.

It Is clear enough that the completion of this program will eliminate

all discharges to Lake :‘Ilchigan, wIth the exceptIon of bypasses.

;coreover,

the evIdence shows that there will be no bypasses from any of the five

small lakefront plants

(R.

983); that a retentIon basin will be built

at Corth ChIcago

(ft.

1080), although It

Is not clear whether

it will

elIminate all bypasses at that site; and that present Waukegan bypasses

will be captured and given at least twelve hours’

sedimentation and

chlorination.

It is anticIpated, however, that “a few times a year for

a few hours aftor havIng received long term sedimentation and chlorination”

the sewage in the Waukegan oasin wIll be allowed

to

overflow

Into

the

Lake when the basIn’s capacity is exceeded, rather than being put through

the plant for complete treatment

CR.

977—78,

1056,

1078).

Building a

basin large enough to accommodate peak flows would, the District conceded,

be titheoreticallY feasIble,” but the impact of the overflows upon the Lake,

in the DistrIct’s vIe;:, “~eezsto be suffIciently small that it would

hardly justIfy spending mIllIons of dollars to avoid”

(ft.

1078).

1-379

---

While

the District was planning to move ahead with the expansion,

other people were not.

Since the passage of the District’s bond issue

In

1968,

there

has

been delay after delay In implementIng the

recommendations of the District’s engineer.

This entire mess is outlined

extensively

In

Exhibit

“B”

which

was

made

a

part

of

the

record.

Only

$8

million

of

the

authorized

bonds have been sold, and the District

has

been advised by bond counsel that it cannot sell any more until the

resolution of a law—suit attacking the validity of the authorization

itself.

Further,

the

federal

grant

of

$11.55

has been held up pending

the decision in a lawsuits questioning the validity of the grant and

pending

the

envlx’onmental

assessment

by

the

federal

government.

The

simple

fact

is

that

at

this

time

the

District

cannot

use

the

funds which

it thought were already in its pocket for use.

The further fact is that

the

$116.55

(plus

an additional $0.8 million earned in interest by

the

District

on

the

bond

money

already

received)

Is

simply

not

enough

to

do

the

basIc

job

(recommended

by

the

District’s

engineers

and

approved

by

the

District)

of expanding and building plants to adequately treat

the

wastes

received,

and

to

be

received.

The

District’s

engineer

estimates that while the original cost of the expansion project was

$60 mIllign In 1967, the cost has now risen, because of increased

construction costs and Inflatiort in general, to $85 million.

(ft. 985)

Because of these and other delays, first prIority has been given

to those facIlities the District anticipates it can build withIn its

present $35,000,000 bond Issue and the profferred $11,550,000 federal

grant:

the enlargement of Clavey Road and abandonment

of

the

five

small

lakefront plants; the three-stage plant

at

Ournee

and

the

diversion

and retention facilitIes at North Chicago; and the’enlargenent and re—’

tention basin at Waukegan.

(ft. 1079—80).

The District estimates that

It can have Clavey Road ready to allow closing of the five small plants

by the end of 1972 if there

are

no

further

delays

in

litigation

or

in

the use of the money already, authorized

(R. 166, 1031).’

Gurnee, given

the same assumptions,

is expected to be completed “before the end of

1972 or the middle of 1973”

(ft.

1072).

No time estimate for the expansion

and retention facilities at Waukegan is given; designs for these im-

provements were said to be “just under 80 per cent complete” at the

time of hearing last ovember

(R.

441), and the letting of any additional

contracts

was

being

held

up

because

of

litigation

over

the

sale

or

additional

bonds

(ft. 525—25).

Because the $46,550,000 available to the

District

once

this

litigation

is

cleared

up

and

the

federal

grant

re-

leased will not cover the tertiary facilities at Waukegan or the diversion

of Waukegan .to the Des Flames River, phosphorus removal will be provided

at Waukegan in the interim

(ft.

152).

The District hat petitioned for a

variance to permit the discharge of unabated phosphorus from its five

small plants despite the December 1971 deadline, on the ground these plants

wIll be abandoned soon thereafter.

That case has been scheduled fore

hearing, (PCB 71—36).

No timetable has been suggested by the District

for

the’ final

steps

in

the

Waukegan

program.

1-380

---

THE

QUESTION

OF

MONEY

We

must

now

face

the

issue

of

finding

a

way

for

the

District

to

proceed

immediately

with

its

plans

for

exransion.

We

must

find

a

way

to

generate

more

funds

than

presently

are

available

to

the

District.

To

do

this

we

look

to

Section

~46

of

the

Environmental

Protection

Act.

That

Section

provides

as

follows:

~‘Any municipality

or

sanitary

district

which

has

been

directed

by

an

order

issued

by

the

Board

or

by

a

Court

of

competent

jurisdiction

to

abate

any

violation

of

this

Act

or

of

any

regulation

adooted

thereunder

shall

unless

said

order

be

set

aside

uron

petition

for

review,

take

steps

for

the

acquisition

or

construction

of

such

facilities,

or

for

such

repair,

alteration,

extension

or

completion

of

existing

facilities,

or

for

such

modification~of

existing

practices

as

may

be

necessary

to

eomrly

with

the

order.

If

funds

on

hand

or

unappropriated

are

insufficient

for

the

purooses

of

this

section,

the

necessary

funds

shall

be

raised

by

the

issuance

of

either

general

obligation

or

revenue

bonds.

If

one

estimated

cost

of

the

steus

necessary

to

he

taken

by

such

municipality

or

sanitary

district

wIth

such

order

Is

such

that

the

bend

issue

necessary

to

finance

such

nco~set

woud

net

raise

the

total

outstanding

bonded

indeb

t:-dee:

ci

cob

nun

~.

o

.~i

0

cur:

1 tary

~

~.

~n

c-~o

—

by

the

Constitiu:iori

at

the

itooc

~c:

Illinois,

ob~

ir

:cossa:

bonds

may

be

issueu

as

a

direct

obiluat

ion

u:

tuch

municirality

or

sanitary

district

and

retired

oursuant

to

general

liii:

governing

the issue of

such

bonds.

No

election

or

reicrendun

shill

be

necessary

for

the

issuance

of

bonds

under

thit

sccticn~

‘~

(Empnasls

si:ppoied)

L~ckorut oti-~er lur500atlons

ano

since

tne

ne;;

iliincas

honstitution

tccent&

~

~scc

ark

t~ beoo~

~fc~

L

Ju

_,

1

~rta

n~ cc

limit

on

the

Dcnd:Lng

irisesoedness

of

:::unoeioallties

or

sanotary

districts,

the

Board

has

the

power

ranted

in

Section

t6

to

reuire

that

tue

District

issue

aeneral

obliration

or

renenue

sends

in

order

to

obtain

the

additional

monies

necessary

to

corir.teie

toe

exoansion

orogram.

The

District

arciucs

at.

this

Board

dccc

no.1:

have

such

power

to

require

the

issuance

of

such

bonds

ifl

t:r:is

case

becuuse

of

the

pro—

e~bitions

~f

tr

~otcr

42

Il~

u~

~

u

‘

cot ion

crow ides

,

in

part

that

the

ilistrict

may

borrow

money

for

cercor

ate

purooses

and

Issue

bonds

thccreior

,

bat

t~sh0ll

not

be

~noobtcu

in

an~

manner,

or

For

any

rur005e

,

to

an

amount

in

the

aggregate

to

exceed

5

ncr

centum

on

the

valuation

ti

taxable

property

tBerein~

‘~

Since

381

---

the District is presently clos~eto its bonding limit, the imposition

of the

5

limitation would mean that this Board

could

not

really

require any bonds to be issued.

The District’s argument is based on

what at first blush seems to be an apparent discrepancy between the

Environmental Protection Act and the Act creating the District.

How-

ever, the District’s construction is too narrow because in other portions

of the act creating it

(in which the alleged limitation language is

found) there is a clear recognition that this Board has the power to

require the issuance of bonds beyond the

5

limitation.

One need

only look further in Section 283 which contains a proviso that if

ordered by “an administrative agency of the State of Illinois having

jurisdiction” to issue orders to abate its discharge of sewage (this

Board is such an agency), the District may issue bonds in an amount

“required for that purpose plus such reasonable future expansion” as

shall be approved.

No mention is made in this part of the section that

the District is limited in the amounts of bonds it may

issue

under

these

circumstances..

Further, Section 283 of the same

Act

is

specific

in

recognizing that the Environmental Protection Act provisions take

precedence if in fact a~conflict with the District’s Act exists.

In

that section the following appears:

“Nothing in this Act contained may be construed as superseding

or in any manner limiting the provisions of the

‘Environmental

Protection Act’, enacted by the 76th General Assembly.”

The IllinoIs legiblature, which has the authority to do so, has foreseen

and resolved any conflict between the two statutes.

They have directed

that the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act. take

precedence, and rightfully so, since the legislature in passing that

unique

and novel piece of legislation, has directed this Board,

and its sister groups to clean up our environment so it is a fit

place in which to live.

It recognized that there would be situations

in which the statutory bonding power would have been reached and yet

there

was

a need for more funds, whtch could only come from the local

community.

We hold, therefore, that under Section

116

of the Environmental

Protection

Act

this

Board

has

the

authority

to

‘require

the

issuance

of bonds in this case without being constrained by the

5

bonding

limit.

We recognize that the power granted to this Board by

the

legislature

is one which must be used with great discretion.

We should not in every

case, under whatever circumstances, use this power.

But we should use

it to fight pollution of the magnitude found in this record.

We have

been told that Lake I•lichigan is

‘in a pollutional state.

People living

in

the

area

of

the

District

are

unable

to

use

it

for

most

of

the

year

tecause of the discharges of the District——the beaches have been closed

in past years and they will continue to be closed unless something is done

to solve this horrendous problem.

Lake Michigan is one of the great

natural resources, not only of this area, but of the United States as a

whole.

We would be shirkIng our duty and responsibility if we did not

do everything within,our power to save it.

---

The District needs over $40 million of additional funds to complete

the present expansion proqram.

This is assuming the funds presently

tied

up are rd cased.

We hereby conmand the District to issue such

bonda

as

are

necessary

to complete the exnansion program as outlined

in the order of this Board.

If the cost is $50 million, we can easily

say that Lake is worth that much.

The District may in fact not be required to use the bonding power

which

we

grant

it

in

this

order.

Other means may be available for

raising the money necessary to connlete the required orojects.

In addi-

tion to the nresent bond issue money

($35 million), the federal grant

($11.55 million), and the interest earned to date

($0.8 million), the

Congress of the United States is considering

a bill which would make

a special grant to the District of $25 million.

Also,

the

new

bond

issue passed in November 1970 would allow the District to receive a

state grant of 25

which could a’t~ountto $20 million and if that grant

were

made

additional

federal

funds

could,

and

should, be made available

to the District.

Although these may become available to the District

at some date in the future, this Board cannot allow the District, and

the

people

of

Illinois,

to

wait

to

so’ne

undetermined

time in the future

to move the District’s proriram ahead.

The Lake cannot wait while

litigators,

and

administrative

agencies,

decide

on

whore

the

money

will come

from.

If money does become available to the District in the

future,

that

money

can

be

used

to

retire

the issued bonds as they come

due

and

to

pay

the

interest

thereon.

The

authority

herein

granted

by

the

Board

to

the

District

will

allow

the

District

to

go

“full

speed

ahead” on the prograns which it has proposed.

The District does have the ability to raise additional funds through

the

use

of connection charyes,

fines and industrial? surchar’~es. The

record is clear that the District has not been availinc itself of the

use of these incone producinq sources.

There is no question that the

District should levy fines where indicated, that it should provide for

reasonable connection charges and that it should adopt an industrial

surcharge ordinance which would require industry to pay its fair share

of the cost of treatment.1

The amount of money which the District would

receive from these sources would be minimal and would probably not affect

the substantial ar,ounts which are needed.

The District should, however~

use these methods as a source for funds immediately.

Generally, as to the other aspects of the District’s expinsion

program,

(other

than

Clavey

Road

which

will

be

discussed

later)

the

District will be obliqated by this Board

to

move with

due

diligence,

under a timetable to be renuired by this Board, after an additional

public hoaring, to remove the effluent of all the Lake front plants

from

tha

Lake.

1) The testimony in the record demonstrated that there was no basis

today for industries discharging into the District’s treatment plants

to

pay

any

additional costs.

In the future, however, it is contem-

plated

that

new

industries

will

be

adding

their

wastes

to

the

District’s

system;

theretore, an industrial surcharge ordinance would assist

the District in comnutinn charqes for the new industries that will

be discharging theLr wastes into the District’s system.

1-383

---

NEW SEWER

CONNECTIONS

The North Shore Sanitary District is not

only ~

wealthy

area that can easily affcrd to provide respectable sewage treatment.

It is also a vIgorously growing area, and its growth poses an

additional problem that must be dealt with in today’s order.

For

new homes, new shoppIng centers, new developments of all kinds pro-

vide more than places to live, to play, and to earn a lIving; they

provide additional sewage that must not be allowed to cause pollution.

If sewage is not to pollute, it must be treated, and at present the

North Shore Sanitary District has no facilities to treat any addItional

sewage.

The proof is overwhelming that every one of the DIstrict’s

plants (with the possible exception of the small Ravine Drive plant,

which is about to be diverted to overloaded Clavey Road and which pro-

vides only inadequate primary treatment) is grossly overloaded now.

These plants cannot handle their present loads, much less any

additional sewage.

To add further burdens wcu)d compcun’i the already

glaring inability of the District to treat the wastes it receives.

To allow any new source of wastes to be connected to the present

District system, or any existing source to Increase the quantity or

concentration of its wastes, wculd be equivalent to authorizing the

dumping of raw sewace directly Into Lake MichLgan or

f.nto the Skokie

Ditch.

Why this is Intolerable has been amply de:;onstratod elcewhc’re

in this opinion.

It

Is a barbaric practIce

thtzt makes

a :~,ckeryof

all our efforts to reduce pollutIon.

We

uc;e

ha~occanioc before to

refuse to anew the dischar~eof ra:~sewage even for a short tito, see

Springfteld Sanitary DIstrict v. EPA, 170—32 (Jan.

27, 1971), and we

think the same course should be taken here.

It

has

been

the

practIce

of

the

Environ.’tental

Prctection

A~ency

in recent times to refuse permits for new

set:er connections

that. would

burden

treatment

facilIties

that

are

already

overloaded.

See

petItIon

for review ip VIllage of ~ake Forest v. EPA,

P 71—21.

~

have

already

held that the EPA practIce

Is

also

Board

policy.

In

EPA

v.

Vlflage

of

Glendale Heights,

1 70—8

(Feb.

17, 1971), fInding tnat existing

treatment facilitIes were inadequate, we ordered the Village not to permit

any new sewer ccnnectlons until the plant was able to afford proper

treatment.

In the present case, too, such an order is i:~perativeif

we are to avoid the continuing threat of increased water pollution

arid

serve the purposes of the Act.

It would be anomalous indeed for this

Beard

after

holding

that

gross

pollution

is

occuring,

to

Issue

an

order

that permitted the situation to get sti.fl worse.

in the ana)ogous field

of air pollution, the re;ulations are quite clear that new sources of

contaminants are net permitted to operate until equipped with control

devices sufficient to control emissions in accord with the standards,

see Rules and RegulatIons Governing the Control of Air Pollution,

ehaptet

3,

and in granting variances per~Ittingthe emissIon of air

contaminants during the installatIon of control

devices

we have commonly

imposed the condition that emIssions not be increased until the sItuatIon

is corrected.

E.’g., Greenlee Foundries v.

EPA,

1 70—33

(March 17, 1971);

Ozark—t’ahoning Co. v. EPA,

II

70—19

(Dec.

22, 1970).

SImilarly, precedent,

1—384

---

sound policy,

and the statute itself make clear that

to attach new sewage

sources to an overloaded plant is

to violate the Environmental Protection

Act’s ban on water pollution.

We recognize that this ruling may cause considerable inconvenience

for those who hope to build or

to begin occupying new buildings in the

District.

It should be obvious that pollution control

is never without

its costs.

Industrial firms are often required to spend millions of

dollars for treatment facilities.

Closing a polluting plant can put

people out of Work.

But the people of Illinois have reaffirmed by their

overwhelming approval of the $7~O,OOO,OOOAnti—Pollution Bond Issue

their

conviction

that considerable sacrifices must be made

to restore our

much—abused waters to

a more acceptable state,

If some hardship is

incurred because of today’s order,

it seems

to us

to be more than justified

by the disadvantages of permitting increased pollution of the Lake.

It is disgraceful that

one of the richest counties in the nation must

close its beaches because of its incredible neglect of its obligation

to

provide adequate sewage treatment.

The people of today are paying for

the sins of the past.

It should also be pointed out that we are not necessarily putting

an end to the growth of Lake County,

We

are sneaking,

first

of’ all,

of a rather

short

time,

as

we are always reminded by those who ask to

continue polluting just

a little longer.

Second,

there

is

no reason

why

construction

cannot

proceed

up

to

the

point

just

prior

to

sewer

connection

during

the

period

of

the

ban.

Third,

there

are

alternatives

available

to provide treatment for

new sources while

the District slants

are being rebuilt.

Package plants

for sewage treatment are readily

available to develooers; lagoons may in some cases be permissible

expedients;

it

may

be possible to

increase the effecti’ve capacity of

existing secondary plants by the addition of coagulant chemicals or

by the use of oxygen for aeration.

Lest it~be argued that

the

addition of

new

sources of ill—treated

sewage

is a minor problem,

it should be pointed out

that,

apart from the

obvious inadequacy

of primary treatment at the smaller plants and the

issues of nutrient removal, the entire sorry

state

of affairs in the

North Shore Sanitary District is due directly to the addition of new

sources

to overloaded plants.

The

overflows of poorly treated waste to

the Lake are the result of

such connections, and so are

the

dreadful

air and water pollution violations

at

Clavey

Road.

If

the

present

policy

against connections had been in force

when

these overloads began, we

should not be in nearly such a mess today,

We shall therefore order the District not to permit any

new

sources

of waste

to

be ccnnected to its facilities, or any existing source to

be

increased in quantity or in concentration, until the District can show

that

it can adequately treat the additional wastes,

We

hope

that

this

order

will

not

cause

a

significant

slowdown

of

development

and

that

the

District,

armed

with

additional

bonding

authority,

will

proceed

with

such

dfligence that b~iilders, developers, and their clients will not suffer.

If such a slowdown

does

occur, however, !t

is attributable

to

years of

past neglect, and the

Lake

is worth

the price.

1-355

---

THE

CLAVEY ROAD

PROBLEM

Now we must proceed

to a consideration of

the problems involving

the Clavey Road

sewage treatment plant

and

the complaint

filed by its

neighbors.

Mrs.

Loraine Facktor,

Mr.

and Mrs.

Paul Brown and

Mr.

and

Mrs. Emanuel Winston have alleged that the operation

of the Clavey

Road treatment plant by

the District

is in violation of

the statutory

prohibition against air

and water pollution

(Sections

9(a)

and

12(a)

of

the Act)

and

in violation of the rules and regulations governing

the Control of Air Pollution

(Regulations which were issued by

the

Air Pollution Control Board.) Facktor,

et

al.,

asks

this Board

to issue

a cease

and desist order against

the unlawful operation

of

the Clavey Road plant and to bar

the District from proceeding

with

the expansion of

the Clavey Road plant.

FACKTOR MOTION TO DISMISS

Before discussing the merits of the Facktor,

et al.,case the Board

must deal with one procedural matter.

Mrs.

Facktor,

as was pointed

out, was one of

the original complainants

in

this case.

Through her

attorney,

she participated

in the pre-hearing conference and the

full hearing.

Yet,

for reasons

never given,

on

the last day of

hearing

in this matter

(there were six days

of hearings altogether)

Mrs. Facktor~sattorney,

at the rec~uestof his

client,

advised the

hearing

officer

that

she

wished

to

“withdraw

her

comalaint”

with

prejudice

(R.1132).

The attorney for the District strenuously ob-

jected

to

the

granting

of

the

motion.

We agree with

the

District’s

attorney in this matter.

It is indeed odd that a party would par-

ticipate so deeply in

this

matter,

and

claim that such terrible

problems exist,

yet want to delay this matter even further by with-

drawing from

the case.

This tactic certainly

tends

to prove that

Mrs.

Facktor was not serious about her complaint

in the first place,

but rather

she wished

to harass

the District by brinning yet another

case agaihst

it.

(See,

infra page~~)

.

We cannot allow such action

by

a party.

Those who bring cases before this Board should be pre-

pared to prosecute their cases

to

a conclusion.

The motion

to dis-

miss

of Mrs.

Facktor

is hereby denied.

We can now turn to the facts.

THE CLAVEY ROAD SITE

The Clavey Road sewage treatment facility was built in 1958,

on

a site designated for

it in 1928.

The location of the Clavey Road

plant was part of

the City

of Highland Park plan of

1947, (R.992),

The Clavey Road plant

is located on

the west side of the Skokie

Ditch approximately midway between Clavey Road and County Line

Road

in the City of Highland Park.

The Clavey Road plant has

the

capacity to treat up

to 4.5 million gallons

of water per day~, using

I

386

---

the activated sludge type of treatment.

When Clavey was con-

structed, the only hones nearby were twelve to fourteen hones in

the Village of the Woods subdivision, immediately north of County

Line Read and east of Edens Expressway.

CR.1000).

In the ten-year

period since the plant’s construction,

the Seven Pines subdivision

containing seventy to seventy-five homes has been added to the

ir.mediate west.

Temple Sold

and Kennedy Grammar School have

been built since 1958 within a half-mile of the plant.

(R.l002).

The Clavey plant presently serves the Gurnee area, the Skokie

Valley, Park City at the junction of Belvidere and the Skokie Ditch,

the western portions of North Chicago, Lake Bluff, Lake Forest, and

Highland Park, and the tcaukegan—Gurnee industrial park.

The plant is

hydraulically overloaded on a regular basis, in that it receives

mere waste than it can handle.

(R.141,587).

As an indication of

the ovcrloadinv occurring at the 4.5 mgd plant, the Agency tosti—

ficd that

January, 1969 records

showed

an average flow to the plant

of 4.38 mgd, with an average total pumpage of 6.2 ngd.

Thirteen

days of that nonth, the plant by-passed primarily—treated sewage,

most eften over 2 mgd per day

(EPA Ex.#l).

In August, 1970,

the

plant by-passed on ten days, on an average of

1 mgd per day. (EPA

Ex.1il9).

Ever since the plant has been in operatio~,the Skokie

Ditch has been the receiver of the effluent.

The result of the dis-

charge of the effluent into the Skokie Ditch is obvious.

The water

in th~ditch itself

(which is a rinimurn flow and sotetimes no flew

stream)

is of extremely

poor

quality.

As Carl Blongren of the

Agency testified,

“(the stream)

is full of sludge,

it is full of

ccndor.s,

it

is

full

of

floating

grease,

it

is

full

ef

sanitary

nap-

kins,,

it has cot ground vegetables all along the banks and everr

thing in that river belongs in the treatment pthnt.”(R.589).

The

sludge frem the Clavey plant can be found in the Skokie Lagoon

which is over a mile away.

The Lagoons themselves record little

dissolved ox’gen——a

condition which makes the Lagoon virtually

uninhabitable except by polluticn-tolerant

organisths.

Testimony

indicated that the Ditch itself was

putrid

and visible floating

solids were seen on ::any occasions.

There is no question but that

the discharges of the Clavey plant into the Skokie ditch are causing

water pollution under Section 12(a) of the Environmental Protection

Act.

Certainly, the hydraulic overloading of the plant is a princi-

pal contributor to the polluticn because the wastes received under

those conditions cannot be adequately treated.

DIS’RICV’S EXPANSION OF

CLAVEY

Faced with what was an obvious pollution problem the District

dc~cidedas part of the total expansion program to expand the present

Clavey Road facilIties.

Essentially, the plant will be expanded to

accomoclate 18 mLl,icn gallons per day.

To accomplish this, additional

dicester facilities and treatment plans would be added.

In addition,

‘.‘

effluent l4agoon will be constructed which will hold the wastes and

---

aerate them

after they have received secondary treatment

(11.1006)

The District plans

to construct retention basins designed

to hold

up

to

20

million gallons.

These basins

will

hold

the

incoming

wastes

at

times

when

the

plant

is

unable

to

adecurateiv

treat

those

wastes

(this

is

usually

at

times

when

the rainfall

is great)

.

~hon

the ~influent

into

the plant

is

reduced.,

the

wastes

stored

in

the

retention basins will be

run through

the full

treatment process

of

the

plant.

(R.l014)

.

The

effect

of

the

retention

basins

will

be

that

all

wastes

coming

to

the

Clavey

plant

will

receive

secondary

treatment,

with

additional

retention

and

aeration

in

the

effluent

lagoon.

On

the

basis

of

pum~age

records,

the

District

estimates

that

the

retention

basins

will

be

incapable

of

handlin

the

excess

flow

only

once

a

year;

on

that

occasion,

the

flow

wfll

he

chlorinated

before

discharge

(R.l017)

.

Any

solids

left

in

the

presed.inrentation

or

retention

basins

will

be

scoured

out

and

flushed

to

the

treatment

plant(R.l019)

Residents

of

Highland

Park

did

not

agree

that

the

expansion

of

the

Clavey

plant

should

take

place

in

the

raar.nc’r

outlined

by

the

Dis-

trict.

~Then

the

District

apulied

for

a

ocrrnit

from

the

City,

the

City

granted

the

District

a

Social

nermit

which

would

have

allowed

the

expansion

of

the

Clove

xi

ant

hut under certo

in

condi. Lions,

in-

cluding

coverino

the

or

.irarv

facilities,

oera’t:ion

tanks

and

final

settling

tanks,

the

coverage

of

the

storrriwater

retention

lagoon,

the

monjtor~n~

of

cossible

enissions

from

the

plant,

the

control

of

odors during

construction,

a

lirnitatior~

of

the

area that mieht be

served

by

the

plant

and

a

limitation

on

the

kind

of

waste

that

could

be

introduced..

(R. 1024)

.

The

District

challonced

the

imposed

condi-

tions

in

a

lawsuit

in

theCircuit

Court

of

Lake

County.

After

hearing,

the court held three of

the

cond:tions

valid;

cover:Lng

of

t:he orimary,

aeration

and

final

settling

tanks,

the

recuiroment

for monitoring,

and

‘the requirement

that

every effort be

ItaLic

during

const:ruction

to

control

the

odors.

Subsequent

to

that

decision

by

the

Circuit

Court

(and

undoubtedly

to

forestall

an

ocred

of

the

decision)

,

the

District

entered

into

an

aareement

with

the

City

in

which

the

Dis-

trict

agreed that

it

would

cover,

ventilate

and

deodorize

the

presedi—

mentation

portion

of

the

retention

basin.

(R. 1028)

.

After

the agree-

ment,

the

City

issued

building

permits and work

on

the

expansion

at

Clavey

is

now

under

way.

The District’s

plan

to

control

gaseous

emissions from the plant

can now be fully described:

All

of

the structures

for

the

screen cham-

ber,

the grit loading building,

the thickening

tans,

the sludge

storage tanks

and

loadtng

building,

and

the

treatment

tanks

(which

will he covered)

will

be

equipped

with

a

forced ventilation system

made

to

keep

the

structures

under

a

slight

negative

pressure,

so

tha

any

leakage

will

be

in

rather

than

out.

Once

air

is

brought

into

the

process,

it

will

be

reil~nad

to

be

used

as

makeup

air

in

one

of

the

later

stages

until

it

it

finally

taken

through

wet

scrubbers

before

—388

---

discharge to the athosphere.

Eyhaust

gases

from

the sludge areas

will be

taken

through a catalytic combustion unit before discharge.

To avoid the spread of bacteria either through the atmosphere to

the surrounding neighborhood or to the discharge waters, chlorina-

tion will be provided as the raw sewage enters the plant, prior to

discharge to the aerated lagoon, and again as the flow leaves the

effluent lagoon.

To handle the excess flows due to heavy infiltra-

tion in wet weather, the plant will contain retention basins capable

of handling twice the design flow; the excess flow, will be chlorinated

as it enters the pre-sedimentation basins in order to inhibit the

decomposition of sewage, thereby preventing the development of odors.

(R.1034—36).

THE

ODOR

PROBLEM

TODAY

Based

upon

the testimony in the record there is no question

that

presently the Clavey Road plant (operating at over-capacity) is a

nuisance

to

its

neighbors.

Many

persons

testified

as

to

the

obnovious

odors which were experienced during the last

summer.

The odors were

so bad, according to many witnesses, that the neighbors were unable

to use their yards.

The smell even

permeated some houses and em-

barrassed the neighbors who had guests.

Examples of the testimony

about

the odors emanating from the plant are many:

Mrs

•

Marlene Surell:

“TI he

smell

is nauseating.

. .

.añd

on those days when it smells particularly bad we just don’t

go for a walk...we go

into

the house because it just is

impossible to’ sit outside.”

(R.755—7)

Mrs. Morton Weiner:

“We have never really been able to

use

our outdoors in the summer.

. .

as far as people coming

to my home, they have experienced nausea, just a sick

feeling in their stomach, and have never been able to

really enjoy my house.”

(R.768-770)

Mrs. Loraine Facktor: “A

t ‘the times that it does smell

we can’t sleep through the night and it affects

our

living

conditions...I am very sensitive to odors...and I get terrible

headaches and I can’t breathe

from

it.”

It

has

a deep

disinfectant chemical smell like Lysol that burns my eyes.”

(R.

77j—6).

Odor is a “contaminant” within the

definition

contained

in

the

Act.

“Air

pollution

as

defined

in

the

Act

is the presence in the

atmos-

phere of any cohtaminant which is injurious to health, or unreasonably

interferes with the enjoyment of life or property.

There can be

no question that the testiiiony in this record, as outlined, above,

the

District

has

violated

Section

9(a)

of

the

Act.

This

conclusion

is

the

1-3W

---

seine

as

that made by

the Air Pollution Control Board.

See APCB

69—5..

THE CLAVEY SITE

If all

the complainants wished

to do was to prove

“air

pollu-

tion”

and “water pollution”

as

a result of the operation of the

present Clavey plant,

they’ would have completely won their case.

They wish to

go further,

however.

They wish that

this Board. require

that the District close the operations at

the Clavey plant.and

send

it somewhere

else.

The complainants argue that the plant should be

moved

for

two

reasons——first, because of

the health hazards which

may exist because

of

the proximity of

the plant to people, and

second,

that alternative

sites

are available.

As

to

the first reason--the health issue--the complainants rely

heavily on

the testimony of Dr.

Bertram Carnow.

Essentially he

tes-

tified that not enough is really known about the emissions from

sewage treatment plants.

What little is known indicates that

a sew-

age treatment plant can emit sulfur dioxide,

nitrogen dioxide,

chlorine

gas,

carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.

None of these

emisstm are excessive in terms of those other facilities that burn

fuel

in

order

to

operate.

Though

the

emission

of

those

gases

did

concern

Dr.

Carnow,

his

major

point

was

the

certain

bacteria

and.

viruses

can

be

carried.

by

aerosol

particles

released. during the

treatment

process.

These

particles

would

carry

the

bacteria

and

viruses

at

least

for

a

mile,

making

those

living

close

to

a

sewage

treatment

facilitymore

likely

to

be

infected.

He

concluded,

then,

that

while

the

studies

on

transportation

of

viruses

and

bacteria today

are not definitive enough,

sewage treatment plants should not be lo-

cated within a mile of where people reside

(R.647),

In

addition

to

Dr.

Carnow, Dr. Feinberg,

a local resident, testified that persons

with

respiratory

ailments

could

be

affected

by

the

emissions

from

the treatment plait

As

to

the second reason—-alternative sites——there was testimony

that

not

only

were

alternate

sites available, but

if

used,

the

costs

would

not

be

increased.

The

principal

witness

for

the

complainants

on

this

issue

was

Amos

Turner,

an

electrical

engineer.

He

cited

three

possible

alternatives—(l)

a

site

north

of

County

Line

Road

near

the

Des

Plaines

River

(which

is

presently

outside

the

District~s

geographic boundaries);

(2)

a site

in Rondout in an alleged indus-

trial area;

and.

(3)

a direct hookup to the Metropolitan Sanitary

District ofGreater Chicago

(R913—9l5).

As to the three alternatives,

the

last

is

the

least

probable

and

likely.

The

MSD

has

enough

problems

of

its

own

without

adding

to its burden those of

the North

Shore Sanitary District.

In addition, there was no testimony as

to the costs

of such

a hookup and whether it

is technically feasible

---

at

all.

Suggesting

it

is

easy,

implementation

is

more

difficult.

Perhaps

that

statement

can

be

applied

to

all

of

Mr.

Turner’s

sugges-

tions.

One

can

find.

many

acres

of

open

land

in

Lake

County

where

a

sewage

treatment

plant

might

physically

fit,

but

this

Board

must

take

into

consideration

many

factors

other

than

that.

Notwithstanding

the

feeling

of

Mr.

Turner

that

there

will

be

no

increase

in

cost

by

shifting

the

Clavey

plant

at

this

time,

the

fact

is

that

it

will

be

more

expensive.

More

importantly,

it

will

take

substantially

more

time

to

design,

plan

and

construct

such

a

facility.

Interesting-

ly

enough,

Mr.

Turner characterizes

each of

the

two

areas

he

selects

other

than

Clavey

Road

as

“industrial”(R.9l3).

While

there

may

be

some

local

areas

which

are

exclusively

for

industry,

the

testimony

is

quite

clur

that

nowhere in Lake County

is

there

a

ste

which

would.

be

greater

than

one

mile

from

individual

residences.

In

fact,

immediately

adjacent

to

the

Rond.out

site

is

the

unincor-

porated

area

of

Knoliwood.

We

have

reviewed

the

record

in

this

matter

carefully

and

must

disagree

with

the

position

taken

by

Facktor,

et

al.

in

asking

for

the

Clavey

Road

plant

to

be

moved

to

another

site.

This

decision

is

notmade

without

balancing

a

number

of

interests.

The

claimants

would

probably

like

us

to

believe

that

in

making

this

decision

the

Board

is

acting

against

water

pollution,

but not

against

air

pollu-

tion.

This

is not the case.

While this Board has great respect

for

Dr.

Carnow,

we

view

his

position

as

being

that

we

be

as cautious

as

possible

in

controlling

the

emissions

from

a

waste

treatment

plant.

In this

recard.,

the testimony of Dr.

Jimmie

Quon,

an expert

in

air

pollution

matters

hired

by

the

City

of

Highland

Park

to

exa-

mine

the

Clavey

Road

plant

in

regard

to

its

air

pollution

problems,

should

be

reviewed,

Dr.

Quon

feels

the

gaseous

emissions

from

the

Clavey

plant

will

be

adequately handled:

‘-hydrogen

sulfide

will

be

removed.

by

a

scrubber

or

oxidized

—methane

wiil

be

burned

and

converted

to

carbon

dioxide

—chlorine facilities will be carefully designed.

(R.ll42-7)

The amounts of particulates,

oxides

of nitrogen and carbon monoxide

which will be emitted from the Clavey plant will be that amount which

would be expected from 150-200 dwelling units burning natural gas.

(R.ll44).

The significance of

those

contaminants

in

the

atmosphere

is minimal.

Further,

Dr. Quon concluded. that no air pollution prob-

lem would result from the Clavey Road facility as planned--this in-

cludes

an odor oroblen

(R.1l48).

In addition to the testimony of

Dr. Quon,

the testimony of Dr. Dienhardt contradicts that of Dr.

Carnow

on

the

issue

of

whether

viruses

can

be

transmitted

by

air.

The

decision

to recuire the expansion of Clavey plant takes

into

account,

then,

the

fact

that

as

expanded the experts tell us

that

the

odor

croblems

will

subside

and.

that

the

problems

with

the

other

cases,

bacteria

and

viruses

will

be

taken

care

of

as

best

we

know

how

with

todayts

technology.

Sewage

treatment

plants

must

be

1

391

---

located somewhere

and must be located

so as

to cause

the least harm

to

the public health.

In this

case,

the delay which would be caused

by

moving

this

plant

could

severely

affect

Lake

Michigan,

since

the

plants

on

the

Lake

which

discharge

primary—treated sewage will

go

to

the

Clavey

plant.

The

opinion

previously

detailed

the

sorry

state

of

Lake

Michigan.

Since

the

exnanded

plant

with

all

the

additional

paraphernalia

included

will

use

the

best

technology

known

today

and

since

the

project

must

be

completed

as

soon

as

possible

in

order

to

save

the

Lake,

and

since

there

is

no

olace

in

the

county

where

the

plant

can

be

located

and

~-iot

affect

people

as

Facktor,

et

al.

claim

they

are

affected

here,

we

hereby

require

that

the

Clavey

Road

treatment

plant

site

be

used

and

exoanded

to

an

18

million

gallon

per

day

plant;

as

outlined

in

the

District’s

expansion

plans.

Though

the

Board

does

recognize

that

an

odor

problem

does

exist

in

the

vicinity

(which

has

been.

primarily

caused

by

the

hydraulic

overloading of

the

plant)

,

the solutipn lies not

in closing down the

Clavey Road site, but

in assuring its operation with proper controls

and

within

its

capacity.

The

Clavey

Road

site

is

the

most

suitable

one

available;

the

expansion

olants

within

the

guidelines

of this opinion

should

be

carried

out

forthwith.

DISCHARGES

FROM

CLAVEY-WHERE?

Presently,

the District plans

to provide secondary treatment and

an effluent lagoon,

at the Clavey site,

This degree of treatment

would provide

an effluent from the plant which would contain on

the

average

10 parts per million BOD

and

15 parts per million suspended

solids.

The

District plans

to discharge that effluent

to

the Des Plaines

River

by

means

of

a

sewer

rice

which

would

carry

the

effluent

there.

The

cost

of

the

pipe

which

would

carry

this

effluent

from

the

Clavey

site

to

the

Des

Plaines

is

estimated at

$4

million.

SWB—9,

which

are

the

water

quality

standards

and

imolementation

plant

for

the

Des

Plaines

River, provide that where stream dilution is between

1:1

and

2:1

the

discharging sanitary district must provide tertiary

(secondary plus

supplemental) treatment of wastes and have an effluent BOD of

10 and

suspended

solids

of

13.

Therefore,

with

the

type

of

treatment

oroposed

by

the

District for Clavev,

the District would

meet

the

renuirements

of

SWB-9,

if the effluent from

the

Gurnee

plant

is

computed

jn

the

dilution.

This

Board,

however,

is

considering

a

prorosal

on

which

hearings have been held to ungrade

the treatment requirement for dis-

charges into the

Des Plaines River.

The proposal could require no

more than

4 parts ner million SOD and

5 parts

per million suspended

solids.

If

the

Board

adopted

this

oronosal,

and

the

District

discharged

its wastes into

the Des Plaines River,

the District

may well have

to meet these more restrictive

requirements.

In

addition,

testimony indicated that

the Skokie ditch needs

the flow

from

the

Clavey plant to better

flush

that system of

the sludge ~nd

wastes

already

in

it.

We

hereby require,

therefore,

that

the

1

—

392

---

District provide third stage treatment at the Clavey site

(this

means that degree of treatment

so as

to meet

an effluent BOD

standard of

4

and

a

suspended

solids

standard of

5)

and discharge

the effluent into the Skokie ditch.

The differer~in cost

is

mini-

mal.

It is estimated by the District~s engineers that it would cost

$6 million to build tertiary facilities at Clavey Road.

Since the

District estimates that

it will cost

$4 million to build

the pipe

to the Des Plaines,

the difference

is

$2 million to provide good

water to the Skokie ditch.

FURTHER

HARASSMENT BY THE COMPLAINANTS

One

other issue must be dealt with by this Board,

Facktor,

et

al,

admitted

through

the

course

of

the

hearing

that

they

were

members

of

the

Commit~tee to Save Highland Park,

which

is

supposedly

dedicated

to the purpose of having

the Clavey Road

plant

cosed.

Up

to

this

point,

the Committee,

in

which Facktor,

et

al,

play

a major part,

has delayed

the construction to such

a point that

the District,

by

i~own admission, will not be able

to

meet

the

deadlines

imposed

on

it.

A review of

the

litigation

is

in

order

at

this

point:

1.

The

Highland

Park

permit

case--The

Committee

intervened

in

the

proceeding

between

Highland

Park

and

the

District.

The

result

of

this

litigation

was

that

Highland

Park

and.

the

District

agreed

to

certain

conditions

in

consideration

for

the

issuance

of

permits

for

the

construction

of

the

Clavey

plant.

The

Intervenors

were

not

satis-

fied with this agreement,

and have appealed

the case

——

which

appeal

is stll pending.

It is

interesting to note that the basis

for High-

land Park~sposition was that

the law required

(at the time the Dis-

trict applied for

a pemit with the City of Highland Park)

that

the

District get approval from the municipality in which

it was to locate,

even though

the District

is

itself

a municipal corporation.

Since

the settlement

the Supreme Court of Illinois has,

in effect, over-

ruled such contentions as those made by

Highland. Park.

See

~4~2f

nes

v~trooolitan.Sanitary

District

of

Greater

Chica

o

(Docket No.

43367,

November 1970),

2.

Other direct lawsuits against the District were filed by

members of

the Committee

questioning

the effect of the Clavey plant

on the public health,

safety and welfare.

A zoning suit challenging

the validity

of the Special Use Permit on th~sebases was decided

in

favor

of the District.

3.

Nuisance suit——presently pending in

a case against the

District

in

which

members of

the Committee

seek the Circuit Court of

Lake County to declare the Clavey facility a common law nuisance.

1

—

393

---

4.

The Civil Rights case--The Committee has also filed

suit

in

the United States District

Court alleging that the locating of

the Clavey plant in what was described as

a predominantly “Jewi~h

area” was

in violation of

the Federal Civil Rights Act.

The

case

~was dismissed with leave to

file an amended complaint:

this has

never

been

filed

and

the

time

within

which

to

file

has

expired.

5,

Air

Pollution

Control

Board

case-—

Various

residents

and

the

City of Highland Park filed

several complaints with

tile Technical

Secretary

to the Air Pollution Control Board

in

1969.

The Board

hefla

hearing

on

the

formal

complaint

of

the

Technical

Secretary.

In

its

order

of

February

25,

1970,

the

Board

directed

the District

to

cease

operating

theClavey

plant

in

such

a

manner

as

to

cause

air

pollution.

It

is

found

that

it

was

technically

feasible

and

economical-

ly

reasonable

for

the

District

to

install

equirment

which would

sub-

stantially eliminate such emissions.

The individual litigants have

since appealed that

case

and it

is still pending.

6.

The Bond Issue case—-The members of

the

Committee

filed

suit

in

the

Circuit

Court

of

Lake

County

challenging

the

validity

of

the

$35

million

bond

issue

passed.

by

the

electorate

in

:1963.

The. District’s

motion

for

summary

judgment

was

granted.

The

corn—

plainant~ have

since

filed

a

Notice

of

Appeal

in

the

Illinois Supreme

Court

--

which appeal

is

still pending.

7.

Federal Grant Suit-— The nearby homeowners have also brought

a

suit

in

the

Federal

District

court

challencing

the proposed

federal

grant

for

the

Clavev

Road

exPansion project.

The suit

seeks

$45 million in damages

from

the

Federal

government.

In

the

interim,

the

$11.

5

million

earmarked

for

the

District

has

been

held

up

pending

the

outcome

of

the

litigation.

We

have

been

asked

by

the

attorney

for

the

District

to

enter

a

permanent

injunction

against

the

individual

complainants

requiring

them

to

dismiss

all

pending

litigation

and

orohibiting

them

from

further

interference with

the

District’s

plans.

While

the

Act

under

which

this

Board

operates

may

not

seem

to

say

so

to

the

Corn-

planinants

(Facktor,

et al),

we

believe

that

it

grants

to

us

the

power

to

stop

any

person

who

is,

directly or indirectly,

causing

or threaten’-

ing

to

cause pollution

in

this State,

Delay by

the District, which

has been directly

caused. by

the

complainants

and

their

many

lawsuits,

has

contributed

not

only

to

the

pollutional

state

of

the

shore

waters

of

Lake

Michigan,

but

to

the

air

pollution

which

Facktor,

et

ci

want

cased.

The Act requires that this Board stop3rllution

of

all

types,

direct or indirect.

Therefore, we hereby order that Mrs. Facktor,

Mr.

• and

Mrs.

Winston,

and

Mr.

and

Mrs.

Brown

cease

and

desist from

1

—

394

---

prosecuting

any

further

actions

against

the

District

regarding

the

expansion program of

the District,

the District’s bond issues, and

particularly,

the

siting

of

the

Clavey Road plant.

This order,

of

course,

does

not

cover

the

right

to

appeal

this

decision.

This

oPinion

constitutes

the

findings

of fact and conclusions

of

law

by

the

Board.

It

is

the

order

of the Pollution Control Board:

1.

The

District

is

hereby

ordered

to

cease

and

desist

from

pol-

luting

the

waters

of

Lake

Michigan

and

the

waters

of

the

Skokie

Drainage Ditch to

the extent reasonably possible until

the construction

of additional facilities which are required hereunder;

2.

The District

is

hereby• ordered

to cease and desist from

polluting

the

air

at or near its present waste treatment facilities

to

the

extent

reasonably possible until

the construction of additional

facilities which

are

required

hereunder;

3.

The District

is

hereby ordered under Section 46 of

the

Environmental

Protection

Act

to issue general obligation

or revenue

bonds,

after

July

1,

1971,

in the amounts necessary

to

complete

the

proposed

exPansion

of

its

treatment

facilities

in

accordance with

its

proposed exPansion orogram,

the guidelines set forth

in

the opinion

of

the Board

and.

the

time schedule hereinafter set by

the

Board

as

provided.

in paragraph

4

of

this order.

Under this order the District

is hereby authorized

to issue

such bonds

uc

to thearnount

of $50

million; provided however,

the District shall be authorized

to issue

an additional

$35 million

in bonds

if

the present

$35 million bond issue,

previously passed. by

the voters in the

District, in 1968,

fails

en toto

for any reason.

If

for any reason

the authority of

the District under

existing legislation proves insufficient to permit any of the actions

required by

this opinion and order,

the District shall do everything

in

its power to obtain

the requisite additional authority from the

General Assembly.

4.

The District

is hereby ordered to use whatever means within

its statutory powers

as soon as possible

to raise funds

by

the use of

connection charges,

fines and industrial surcharges.

5.

Within thirty

(30)

days after the date of

this

order,

a

public hearing shall

be held under Part

III

of

the

Procedural

Rules

of the Pollution Control Board

at which time

the District

shall

present to the Board

the complete expansion nroqram of the District

as

proposed. by the District and

in accordance with the guidelines

set forth

in this ‘orinion.

In addition,

the District shall present

to the Board

a timetable

for

the

completion

of

the design

and con-

struction of each of

the facilities

to be constructed in

the District’s

~xoansion

program,

and

an estimate of the costs

of each of those

facilities.

The District shall

also present

to

the

Board

possible

interim

solutions,

which can be used while construction

is proceeding,

for

the

treatment

of

wastes

received

by

tth

District.

Prior

to

said

hearing,

the

District

shall

confer

with

the

Agency

regarding

the

1

—

395

---

presentation to be made to the

Board

•

The Aqency shall participate

in the hearing and make recommendations as to the pSsentation of the

Dietrict.

6.

The District shall, within the limitations outlined in para-

graph

4 of this order, proceed itnediately and expeditiously

to

complete its proposed expansicn facilities within the guidelines set

forth in the opinion of this Board.

Specifically, the District shall

immediately proceed with the exoansion of the Clavey Road waste treat-

ment facility to construct an 18 million gallon per day plant with

advanced treatment within the cruidelines outlined in the oninion of

the Board.

Said facility shall continue, even after expansion is com-

plete, to discharge into the Skokie drainage ditch.

7.

The District shall not permit any additions to present sewer

connections,

or

new

sewer

connections,

to

its

facilitjes

until

the

District

can

demonstrate

to

the

Board

that

it can adequately treat

the wastes from those new sources so as not to

violate

the

Environmental

Protection Act, or the Rules and Regulations pronulqated thereunder.

8.

Mrs. Loraine Facktor, Mr. and Mrs. Emanuel Winston and Mr.

and Mrs. Paul

Brown,

three

of the claimants herein, are hereby ordered

to cease and desist from orosecjtin-s any Curther actions against the

District, tho District’s bond issues, and ~arttcu1arlvthe sitinc? of

the Clavey Road plant.

This order does not intend to limit, in any

9.

This order shall be deemed a final order by this Board.

Samuel T. Lawton, Jr.

did

not participate in the consideration

of or decision in this case.

I, Regina 2. Ryan, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, certify

that the

Board

March,

1971.

j