E~

;r

CC4~FOI

BOA

)

19/7

ENVIRONMENTAL

 I IA P1

OPINION OF THE B A

i

I

I

)

1CM0

 requests iriiarc~E,

‘~c

 this

2

)

d

 c~the

Illinois Water ?oliut

r

 ciii

t~cc~s

Reo~

t

 r-’

o

 illow the

connection of

ci

p opo

V

 c’

cit

 3’wCY

 -t~sof

the

Village of Round Lake

cs~

tel

is

~

d

v to

the

 aqage treat-

ment plant of the Rot1

k

 ~PP-c~

 tørI

 ri~,L~ct

 Ilant is

presently on rest~icitth~

 Icix the 0~thrr~th~

 tAM0

 proposes

to construct a tertiary t~e~’iert

 olart capable

I

 d cclarging

effluent meeting BOD ar

 uspe

 ad solids concer2r~ior

 levels of

10/12 mg/l,

respe~tiv’~

‘~,

id

rl°O

having phospror

s

 rer oval equip-

ment capable of reduci g lie pi sp~ us cffluer

 1~velto 1.0 mg/l.

The

 effluent from this propoa ~1plait w’uld diocrarge either into

the sewer system or

t

~

 louccn adj ice t t

ICL

 pr party

 N.M.

would

 also provide a h

 I irg trrk to stire hays d iirg peak

periods

0

The 111th

.°

 trii r~rer~

Pr

t°rt’(n

Agercy

 (Aaency)

 recommends

denial of the variance

 ‘Cue

 o tie overloaded conditlin of the Round

N.M. ROUND lAKE

*i

111

rV

I

COMPANY,

V

)

)

)

‘

(

C’

)CV~

:oiapsny

ii

native,

I

ci

Lii

If

I

 ~td con—

 d4 id K?

r

,C

accordingly

~o

the

Pet

 ion.

 Ii C~ot~ber

 1977,

ting

the

ejaethe

y~’

~iarce.

 This

Pca~:its$eptember

 O-~er.

On July

19

i

/

(N.M.)

 tiled a

 II ti

f

~ended

 Petitior I’or

‘~

strued the filiz g as

s

assigned a new docket n

ib

the Board adopted an Aide,

Opinion is in support of

 I)’

I

c~7~1S9

—2—

Lake

 Sanitary District treatment plant0

 The Agency

 suggests

 that

N.M.

 has another alternative,

 the construction of

 a septic field on

adjacent

 property which N.M. possesses an option to

 purchase.

 K.M.

alleges that it has expended $1.1 million dollars

 toward construc-

tion

 of the development and that an arbitrary and

 unreasonable

hardship will result if it is fo:ced to exercise

 its option on the

adjacent land and construct the septic system

 proposed by the Agency.

Normally a Petitioner who expends its resources

 on a development

with full knowledge that the local sanitary system

is

 on restricted

status would receive little sympathy from the Board.

 The Board in

the past has reluctantly denied similar tthitions;

 to allow one would

make it unfair to deny others.

 Prime cotsideration,

 of course,

is

the

 general health and welfare of the population

 served by the over-

loaded

 sewer sy~tem. This case, however, presents unique

 consider-

ations

 of which the Board must take notice.

N.M., before going forward with its project,

 contacted the

Agency

 concerning its sewer problem and requested

 guidance with

respect

 to its development.

 In response the

 Agency indicated that

a

 permit could be issued under certain conditions

 (Exhibit 1,

Variance

 Petition),

 Conditions to be~rust

 includeddenial of a

variance

 by the Board for connection to the Round

 Lake Beach municipal

sewer

 system and the construction of

a

 tertiary

 treatment plant.

The

plant

 would include phosphorus removal along with

 sufficient dilution

(using

 City water)

 to bring the final phosQhorus

 to compliance with

the Board~s

current Regulations.

 Relying

 o’h

 this Agency representa-

tion,

 N.M.

 proceeded to develop its property.

 The Agency subsequently

refused

 to issue the indicated permit stating it

 preferred the septic

field option to connection to the overloaded sewer

 system.

 The Board

finds that N.M.

 followed

a

 reasonable procedure

 in requesting aid

from

 the Agency and proceeded in good faith based

 upon the represen-

tation by the Agency that it would be allowed to

 connect to the sewer

system if it met the Agency~sstated conditions.

Having found N.M.

 to have proceeded in a

 reasonable and good

faith manner,

 the Board must consider which method of

 waste water

disposal would be least harmful to the citizens

 of the State of

Illinois.

 There appear to be three options.

The

 first is to connect

to the sewer system directly, thereby discharging

 8,500 gallons per

day of untreated sewage into an overloaded sewage

 treatment plant.

The

 second

 option is

 to construct

a

 tertiary

 treatment plant and

discharge its effluent either into the sewer system

 or into an ad-

jacent

 slough.

 The third option, construction of

 a 8,500 gallon per

day

 septic field adjacent to the development,

is

 currently available

to N.M. without action by the Board on this

 variance petition.

Consld~r~i

 that

 ‘t

 pi ~ced_d with its d~‘I ~

the constraint

ci coast

 cticn of the tertiary t~ea~me

 lant

the Board finds

 Lnat. d~ic~t

 connection to the seve~~ stc

is

not warranted

 ~hi 1 res c

 tIe pioposed sep~~

±ie~dth~

Board.

 tins

r

 utica

i.

 a p ist

 ~,ucn

fields may ~ot eon~ttut~. ~ie

best possible m

 t-icd of iastc w~~r disposal and inct~edar~pto~e

to cause sunscp~entproblems due to the lack of pciccla~ic c~pacity

of the soiL.

It

add

tioi, there was testimony at the haaring that

the proposed I e~di~margirol

 (R 154), is beat

 in a

I

~i i ea

(R~347), ard I at ~he Lake Cc ui ty HealtF

 )epartmeat

i

 ~onccrned

about

the

 percolation eap0city

 cat the soil

 (R i~)~ Although the Bard

could merely den

 this sari ace request

 I allow

 t e ~pti

 field to

be constructed w~

lee

 ~ia this proce

 would

 i’

 t be

La

 he best

interests

 I e ~ry re crncerred~,

The opL o

 tca~ia

an

~

 istn of construetior

of

t

 a t~tIary

treatment plan

 La h pho~pious remova

 and haloing ~apL

y,

the

discharge from

ivti

 I wou

 ci go either

 it o the overlo~rdedsewer system

or,

 in the altt~rnative

t

 tie adjacei~s1ougi~.

 The re

 rd coitained

very little informatioa creerning t~eslough,

 and ~ndeed a rumber o~f

citizens complaircd that

 ie sI ugh~’ irainage was not sufficient to

insure lack of ~ont mn~ toi by the pr

 dosed d~scharge~On tIe

other hand there ~

 tentimony

 hat tIe 8500 gallons dLcharged into

the sewer system ~iouldnot oveil

 La the system

 transporning the

effluent to the

 ~anrer,t ~li~

 aLa would ha~~e

 a very minimal effect

on the overloaded treatment plart itself (R~324)~~

The Board liLac that di

 rarge into the slough would offer, at

best;

 a questicn~blesolutaor

t

 the problem and finds that the dis~

charge

 through the tertiary treatment plant into the sewer system

is the

 least ha mful method of handling the waste waters

 The~Board

will therefore gra~at

M

 Round Lake Beach ~evelopirentCompany

variance from Rules

 203(

)

 and 962 of Chapter

 3 of the Regulations

to allow the corstructioi

 and operation of the tertiary treatmeit

package plant with aerat cn and holding capability until June 1, 1980

or until the Round Lake ~anitary District is capable of handling the

effluent without dc~ngerof surcharge, whichever event first occurs,

under certain conditions~

This Opinion constitutes tie rindings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Poa~d in this

 riatteran

I, Christan L

 Moffett

 Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

 crc y certify the above Opinion w~sadopted on theJ~day

of

 1977 by a vote of~/—b.

Christan L~Moff~lk~~

Illinois Polluti~afr’ControlBoard