ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March
15,
1973
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
#72-207
v.
COUNTY OF DUPAGE
DOUGLAS
T. MORING,
ASST. ATTOR1~EYGENERAL, ON BEHALF OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WILLIAM V.
HOPF, ASST.
STATE’S ATTORNEY
(OF DUPAGE COUNTY), ON
BEHALF
OF RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(BY SAMUEL T.
LAWTONF
JR.):
Complaint was filed by the Agency against Respondent, County of
DuPage
(“County”)
on May 16,
1972, alleging that it was the owner and
operator of a wastewater treatment plant known as
the Nordic sewage
treatment plant
(“Nordic”).
The complaint alleged that continuing
violation by Respondent,
as well as violations on certain specified
dates between September 22, 1970 and January
3,
1972,
of Section 12(a)
of the Environmental Protection Act ~h. 111—1/2,
§1012(a),
Ill. Rev.
Stat.
(1971)
1.
During that same period, Respondent was charged with
failure to meet the minimum conditions as
to water quality contained
in the Rules and Regulations under SWB-14 made effective by
§49(c)
of
the Act, and violation of Rule 1.03, paragraphs
(a),
(b)
and
(c)
of
the
Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Standards.
More serious viola-
tions were also alleged, including excess
I3OD,
excess suspended solids
and high coliform content,
in violation of those Rules and Regulations.
Before hearing,
Respondent filed two Motions:
A Motion to Strike
and a Motion to Add parties.
The Motion to Strike was directly toward
relief Complainant seeks under paragraph 2(e)
of the complaint.
“That the Board thereafter enter an order directing
Respondent.
.
.
to take such action as necessary to abate
said violations, pursuant to Section 46 of the Act.1’
Respondent’s Motion to Add Parties requested the addition of the other
operators of wastewater treatment facilities within “Region I”.
The
Board entered a preliminary order denying the motion to add parties
and suspending decision on the motion to strike until the matter had
been heard in its entirety.
Section
46
states:
“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
7
—
269
or of any Regulation adopted thereunder shall, unless
said order be set aside upon petition for review,
take
steps
for the acquisition or construction of such facil-
ities,
or for such repair, alteration, extension or com-
pletion of existing facilities, or for such modification
of existing practices as may be necessary to comply with the
order.
The cost of the acquisition, construction, repair,
alteration, completion,
or extension of such facilities,
or of such modification
of practices shall be paid out of
funds on hand available for such purposes,
or out of the
general funds of such municipality or sanitary district
not otherwise appropriated.
If funds on hand or unappropriated are insufficient for the
purposes of this section, the necessary funds shall be raised
by the issuance of either general obligation or revenue bonds.
If the estimated cost of the steps necessary to be taken
by such municipality or sanitary district to comply with
such order
is such that the bond issue, necessary to~finance
such project, would not raise the total outstanding bonded
indebtedness of such municipality or sanitary district in
excess of the limit imposed upon such indebtedness by the
Constitution of the State of Illinois,
the necessary bonds
may be issued as a direct obligation of such municipality or
sanitary district and retired pursuant to general law governing
the issue of such bonds.
No election or referendum shall be
necessary for the issuance of bonds under this section.
The funds made available by the issuance of direct obligation
or revenue bonds as herein provided shall constitute
a Sanitary
Fund,
and shall be used for no other purpose than for carrying
out such order or orders of the Board.
The Attorney General shall enforce this provision
of
the
act by an action for mandamus,
injunction or other appropriate
relief.”
We do not reach the question of whether
a County that operates
a series of sewage treatment plants is a de facto sanitary district.
The complaint has made no argument of the issue of whether Respondent
is within the purview of p46.
Even if the County were subject to these
provisions,
there has been no showing that such relief pursuant to
~46 is appropriate.
The motion is dismissed.
The Region
I referred to as one of the nine regions described in
No. R70-l7
of Proposed Wastewater Regionalization Regulation for DuPage
County.
The other major
sewage treatment facilities within Region
I
are the plants controlled by Itasca, Wood Dale, Bensenville and Addison.
Three plants have been proposed for this region,
all of which contem-
plate the elimination of
the Nordic facility.
—2—
7
—
270
The County purchased the Nordic plant in 1963 by County Board
resolution
(R.l7)
.
The purchasing agency was the Department of Public
Works which then became responsible for its operation.
The only just!-
fication offered in evidence for the acquisition was by the Department’s
Director:
“This
(Nordic) was the second sewage treatment facility
that was purchased by the County of the Department
of Public
Works.. .The County felt
a need to eliminate the smaller
utility companies,
eliminate smaller package plants and go
to a comprehensive County—wide system.”
Apparently,
the County rested all its hopes on a referendum, which
eventually took place in 1970 to establish a single County—wide treat-
ment facility.
That referendum was decisively defeated.
In the
interim,
the County has also acquired additional facilities not sub-
ject to this complaint.
In regard to the Nordic plant, apparently no major effort was
made to upgrade the facility.
Though additional area was eventually
served
(R.20—2l).
The County’s initial purchase was a complicated
deal
in which the original developer sold the plant to another developer,
who,
in turn,
sold the plant to the County,
on interest-free purchase
where the County “would repay out of the revenue of the system, the de—
velopers...some
$66,000.
(R.21).
That purchase was completed a year
or
so ago.
The Contract for purchase called for services to
a much
larger area which the County undertook to supply,
as needed
(R.22).
At
present, the plant is serving 384 residential customers with the popula-
tion equivalent of 1,400
(R.25)
.
The plant’s designed capacity is
100,000 gallons per day
(R.lO).
The County has supported plans for wastewater regionalization.
However,
it has made little improvement in the facility subject to
this complaint.
For all practical purposes, it has been going from
year to year,
in each instance, hoping that regionalization would re-
lieve them of their responsibilities to fulfill the Water Quality
Standards.
Certainly,
in retrospect, its program of acquisition and
enlargement of the service area has been unwise.
The subsequent failure
to maintain water quality standards,
its lack of revenue to upgrade
the plant
(an apparent unwillingness on the part of the County to pro-
vide more general
funds) have left it in a rather desperate situation.
The most difficult single item to understand is the financial situa-
tion
(R.39-55),
For example, the following testimony:
A
“After getting the money in the budget for engineering
services only in 1972,
the County did by resolution auth-
orize engineering for the trunk sewer between Itasca and
Nordic sewage treatment facility.
Q.
Even though they were unable to determine the manner in which
they could pay for this interceptor,
is that correct?
—3—
7
—
271
A.
Yes...
Q.
You mentioned $35,000 that you received in revenues
that is from the Western Plant?
A.
Al-id restricted
funds from the Nordic Plant,
in other words
any connection fees or service fees would go into
a restricted
fund to pay back the developer, and on Golden Gates Estate,
$66,000.
Q.
And you paid that off in about nine years?
A.
That was just paid,
right.
Q.
From 1963 until 1970,
so that during that period of time
you generated enough revenue,
$66,000,
to pay back the develop-
ment,
is that correct?
A.
That is right.
Q.
At the present time,
is there any money in the budget attribu-
table to the Nordic Park Plant, or from any other sources that
could be used there for the installation of equipment at chemi-
cals?
A.
We have approximately-there was about $42,000
total that we had
in that restricted account which we authorized engineering,
which we estimate to be about $35,000-preliminary engineering
for a trunk sewer.
Q.
So there are seven thousand dollars remaining?
A.
Right.
Q.
Will that be available to construct piping and put in a tank
with
additional
chemicals
in
the
final
tank?
A.
That
would
be
used
for
that
purpose,
yes.
Q.
What
type
of
approval,if
any,
are
necessary
to
extend
that
$7,000?
A.
You
would
have
to
go
back
to
the
Board
(DuPage
County
Board).
Q.
The
effluent
quality
oi
this
plant
has
been
substantially
above
regulation
for
a
long
period
of
time,
is
that
correct?
A.
That
is
correct...
Q.
I
guess
our
real
question
is
——
How
come
you
don’t
use
—
you don’t look into the addition of chemicals or something
to improve the quality of that effluent when you have known
that it
is
--
that its been bad.
—4—
7
—
272
A.
Well, as
I say, we had no money budgeted in 1971 at all
for any capital expenditures at all.
Q.
But you did have this restricted?
A.
We
did,
in 1972.
Q.
You had $42,000
that could have been used,
right,
if you
had a resolution?
A.
Right.
That was just transferred recently to the front...
Q.
And the decision was made to fund engineering rather than
put equipment into this plant,
is that right?
A.
That
is correct.
(R.45,
48—51)
This reveals the County’s self—imposed dependence upon an interceptor
connection
to relieve it of its responsibilities toward this facility.
The Agency’s testimony was brief and directed only to establishing
violations of the Act and Regulations.
It has done so on the fol-
lowing dates:
June 10, 1971 and July 19,
1971.
A stipulation between
the parties allows the inspection and laboratory reports for the other
specified dates to be entered as exhibits without objection as to
accuracy of methodology or observations
(EPA Ex.
1)
.
These reports
establish the violations alleged on these dates:
September 22,
1970,
October
20,
1970, November 17,
1970,
December
8,
1970, March
10,
1971,
April
29,
1971,
May 18,
1971.
June 10,
1971, July 19,
1971, August 19,
1971, September
22,
1971,
and January
3,
1972.
There was no affirma-
tive testimony on the part of the Agency as to possible remedy of the
situation.
Only on cross—examination did the complainant elicit
from Respondents’ witness the acknowledgement of the possibility that
certain chemical additions,
such as ferric chlorides and anionic
polymers, might have
some value in irnprovinq the effluent quality
(R.47)
The treatment plant consists of a two—story primary clarigester
(Clarifier on top
of
digester),
a trickling filter and a secondary
clarifier
in
series.
Sludge fro~nboth the primary and secondary
clarifiers
is digested in the clariqester and then dried on sludge
drying beds.
(Stipulated Surveillance Reports)
Much of
the
problem seems
to be associated with bad operating
practices;
in particular, the sludge handling and treating operations.
The surveillance reports indicate frequent dates where dark colored di—
—5—
2/J
qested single particles were observed in the primary clarifier,
the
secondary clarifier or at the plant outfall.
(Stipulated Surveillance
Reports).
The
source
of
these
particles
is
primarily
the
digester
por-
tion
of
the
clarigester
and
indicates
either
an overloaded digester
because
of
lack
of
sludge
removal
or
faulty rakes on the floor of
the
clarifier
not
moving
the
primary
sludge
into
the
digester.
The
regurgi-
tation
of
sludge
back
into
the
supernatant
increases
the
effluent
BOD
and SS and exerts
a high chlorine demand resulting in low efficiency
of effluent disinfection and high bacterial concentrations.
The bypasses that were reported occurring should be lessened with
the
expansion
of
raw
sewage
pumping
from
2-75
gpm
units
(.216
MGD
total)
to
l350
gpm
units
(.504
MGD)
.
The pump, however,
appears
to be sized
too large for the normal plant flows and must be operated intermittently.
(Stipulated
Surveillance
Reports).
At
the
high
pumping
rate,
the
plant
treatment
efficiencies
are
reduced
but
no
evidence
of
flooding
the
trick-
ling
filter
was
presented.
Decreased bypassing resulting from the in-
creased pumping should also reduce the gross pollution at the outfall
which consists of rags,
paper and vegetable particles.
The presence of rags and paper clogging the trickling filter spray
arms
and
appearing
at
the
outfall
indicates
the
lack
of,
or
a
faulty
bar
screen
at
the
front
end
of
the plant. Many plants also have a comminuter
(grinder)
to
shred
bulk
materials
that
reach
the
plant.
No
evidence
was
presented
of
the
existence
of
either
a
bar
screen
or
comminuter.
The
record
also
indicates
the
absence
of
a
full-time
operator
(R.
48)
who
would
give prompt attention to the operating problems.
We will not order Respondent
to make
a major expansion or capital
improvement in this facility.
However, we cannot go along with Respon-
dent’s apparent decision to stay all improvements pending our Order #R70-l7.
In recognition of its responsibility
to protect public health, Respondent
should have been carrying out a program of adequate maintenance.
This
is
a grave matter and we have reservations
in not assessing a substantial
penalty.
Our Order,
infra,
is directed to what we consider to be the
minimum needed for the protection of the public and conformation with the
relevant statutes and regulations.
On the basis of the record, we order Respondent to upgrade its
operations of the sewage treatment facilities, and to submit
a plan directed
toward maintenance and repair, rather than large capital expenditures.
We
note that Respondent has indicated that there is at least $7,000
in
funds that could
be used in this manner.
Respondent should direct
its
plan
toward
incorporating
the
improvements
noted
below.
The
Board
does
not
establish
the
cost
of
making
the
improvements;
Respondent
must estimate such costs in its plan.
Operations to be improved include:
More frequent sludge removal from the digester;
inspection and/cr repair
of sludgeremoval equipment for primary and secondary clarifiers; possible use
of small pumps in parallel with large pumpt to provide
a more flexible pumping
schedule; repairs to the screening facility or possible installation of
—6—
1
27’~
screens
at
the front end of the plant to prevent rags
or other trash
from clogging the trickling filter spray nozzle; chemical addition
if the cost is reasonable; and the presence of on-site personnel as
necessary.
Plans
should be submitted within 35 days from the date
of
this
Order.
The
circumstances
of
the
case
would
normally
call
for
the imposition of
a penalty.
However,
in view of the contemplated pro-
gram for regionalization of the DuPage County sewage systems, we see
no useful purpose in the imposition of a penalty at this time and none
will be assessed.
This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Board.
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that within 35
days from the date of this Order, Respondent shall submit to the
Agency and the Board,
a plan to upgrade the operation at the Nordic
facility.
The plan should be in conformance with the guidelines stated
in the Opinion and should result in a significant improvement in
effluent quality and the virtual elimination of gross pollution
occurring at the plant outfall.
The Board retains jurisdiction for
such other and further orders ~may
be appropriate.
I, Christan Moffett,
Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control Board,
certify that the abov? Order was adopted on the /~day
of March,
1973,
by
a vote of
‘-/
to
_______
~(
~
—7—
~