ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    August 12, 1976
    CITY OF DES
    PLAINES, RICHARD
    F.
    )
    WARD, and ROSEMARY
    S.
    ARGUS,
    )
    Complainants,
    v.
    )
    PCB 76—157
    METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF
    )
    GREATER CHICAGO and THE ILLINOIS
    )
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondents.
    DISSENTING STATEMENT
    (by Mr. Dumelle):
    This cause is once again before the Board on an alternative
    Motion to Reconsider and Vacate its Order of July
    8,
    1976 and to
    Grant the Complainants leave
    to file a Second Amended Complaint
    Instanter.
    I
    moved
    to grant this alternative Motion but received
    no second.
    Inmy Dissenting Opinion of July
    8,
    1976
    I dwelt at length
    upon the possibility of a health hazard from airborne bacteria or
    viruses from this new sewage treatment plant.
    The new material
    considered today cites an article in Public Health Reports.
    Un-
    fortunately, the article was not furn~hedto us and no Board
    Member has yet seen it.
    Group Exhibit “C” which was attached to the rejected Second
    Amended Complaint is
    a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    memo
    dated February
    4, 1975
    (the year is obliterated but seems
    correct from the text).
    This Exhibit clearly shows that the
    matter of a possible health hazard from sewage treatment plant
    aerosols was explored thoroughly by Federal authorities and
    that covering of the tanks may be required by them.
    Therefore,
    the MSDGC cannot claim surprise on this matter.
    And the
    City of Des Plaines and the resident-complainants ought to be
    able to litigate this matter before us.
    To allow a sewage plant
    to be built and then to determine that a public health hazard
    exists is folly if that determination can be made
    in advance.
    Why
    expose nearby residents for 1-2 years while retrofitting
    of tank covers and air purification equipment takes
    place?
    23
    —
    327
    —2—
    The counsel for the Complainant argued on August 12 that
    the water supply of residents had been polluted by the on-going
    construction and that this had first occurred on or about
    August 10, 1976.
    No notice of this was served upon the Board
    or the Respondents and due process in this matter
    is lacking.
    The Board could entertain a complaint based upon this allegation
    but injunctive relief can only be had in the courts.
    Several of the allegations of the complaint seem to be
    based upon a misreading of the Board Regulations.
    Count 13(D)
    assumes incorrectly that process weight regulations apply to
    sewage treatment plants.
    Counts
    13(F)
    and 13(G)
    refer to
    regulations devised to deal with organic solvents which are
    precursors
    to photochemical smog formation.
    Counts
    11(A)
    ,
    11(B)
    and 11(C)
    are not proper since Rule 916 of the Water Pollution
    Regulations has not been triggered.
    The foregoing
    is not meant
    to be exhaustive.
    In conclusion
    I would have allowed the Second Amended
    Complaint on at least Counts 9(A)
    and 9(B).
    Submitted by
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify the above Dissenting Statement was submitted
    on the
    ~7’~day
    of August, 1976.
    Illinois
    ‘trol Board
    23
    —
    328

    Back to top