ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTEOL BOARD
July
6,
1971
SPRAYING SYSTEMS,
INC.
V.
)
~
71~72
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PULTE
LAND
CORP.
V.
~+
71—7~
ENVIRONMENTAL
P ROTECTI ON
AGENCY
Opinion
and
Order
of
the
Board
(~y Mr.
Currie)
On
February
17,
l~7l
we
entered
an
order
in
Environrnenta~
Protection
Agency
v.
Village ef
°lenC~1~
TTcithts,
f
70~R,
findine
the
village
was
d.ischargi.ag
inadc,Gnatelv
trented
sewage
fren
an
overloaded
plant
and
ordering
the
construction
of
facilities,
which
the
village
had
airea~p
begun,
to
ron’dr
the~situation.
One
paragrach
of
our
order
banned
additional
rower
connections
tributary
to
the
plant
unti
I.
tho
violation
war
corrected,
on
the
ground
that
to
permit
then.
wonl.d
r~ounR the
problem
and
in-
crease
pollution.
The
present
pet.itions
nook
earl
ances
from
that
order
to
permit
new
cortnocti.onn
be5ore
cnm~-lnt.i
on
o~
the
new
facilities
Ye
deny
therr~
Glend.ale fbi
ght.s
has
a
one—mi I lion—gal
br
—per—day
(~‘
2~
25)
secondary
plant
who~c
effluent
~ft
on.
ernoeds
the
rtand~rd~
for
secondary
treatment
(P.
12)
hecans~
it
in.
~requontlv
over—
loaded.
Rules
arid
Regulations
P~’R~l4teouire
a
further
stage
of
treatment
for
snail
receiving
streans
such
an
this
one,
the
East
Branch
of
the
DuPage
Piver,
The
~i
11
non
is
well
on
the
way
toward
completion
of its project,
The tertIary cibters
and
chlorination
facilities
are
expected
to hc comeleted by
July
14,
1971
(R,
46,
40)
so
that
dry—weather
fbow~
(which
average
about
750,000
to
300,000 gpd
(P.
92))
will by then he
properly
treated.
The
twin parallel primary
and se~undary faeilities,
which will give
the system
art additional
2 ogd
of car’acitv,
are
expected
to be finished
and
in
full operation
by
August
1P
(R.
44,
46,
52).
2
—
73
Thus if the petitioners have to wait
to connect their new
waste outlets
to the village sewers they will
not have to wait
long~
And indeed
in the case of Spraying Systems there is no
objection
to
waiting
until Auaust
15
(P.
119).
That
cornoany
is
about
to
move
from
a
plant
in
Bellwood
to
its
new
plant
in
Glendale Heights
(P.
116).
It will
not
he
kent
from
doinci
business by the denial of the variances
Its reason for the re~
quest
is that to delay starting the move
~intil late September
might cost
it some orders since the move might
then catch
it
in
the middle of
a rush buying period (P~ l2l~2?).
There was also
testimony that
a delay might cause
the company to pay
for taxes
and upkeep of the old
and new plants at once
(P~ 122), hut
the
e vidence
is clear that this will he true until December even
if the variance is granted since the move will he stretched out
over
that period
(R,
l23)~
Since Spraying Systems will not he
able
to begin
its move until after the Village expects to have
its plant completed (P~ lii,
118), we
see no likelihood of hard~
ship.
If,
on the other hand,
the plant
is considerably delayed,
we think
the
facts that the company can continue operatina from
its present plant and that it will be paying
for both buildings
until December anyway obviate any significant hardships that
would justify allowing even the anticipated few
thousand gallons
per
clay of extra wastes to
a plant already overloaded,
as we
shall make clear below,
Puite
has planned
to build 384 units
of new housing
(5,
139)
for more
than
800 people
(P.
162)
in Glendale Heights,
Except
for model
homes,
it had
net begun construction when our
order
came down,
and
it had not when
the hearing was held June
2
(5,
148)
After
an initial quick~huilciingperiod
for the
first units,
a 60~dayconstruction period
is anticipated
(5,
155)
,
Puite
asks
to connect
40 units per week
(5,
155)
starting July
15,
adding an estimated
125 gallons per capita per
day
(5,
l63)~
It argues
(5,
2fl~)
that
if
it
builds
the houses
now and leaves them idle until
the treatment plant
is done it
must spend large
sums
for watchmen to prevent vandalism and pay
interest on construction costs
(P.
155,
157),
while
if it does
not
start construction until
the olant
is ready it will suffer
from inflation
in building costs
(P~ 152,
158)~
These
alternatives
do not exhaust the possihilities~
The first houses
can he started
in
time for completion when
the plant
is to be done,
and there
will
he neither
a need
for
long vacancIes nor
a
long delay
before building,
since
that dat~eis August
15,
Pulte put on several witnesses who had purchased
its hones,
whose testimony was not very tellinq~
One said she needed
to know
when
the new homes would he available
so
she
could
sell
her
present
house
(5,
l79~81)
;
a
second,
with
no
lease
problem,
a1 so
had
no pressing need
to be in by July 15
(5. l82~83)~ A
third
2
—
74
was getting
married in late August and hoped to he able to move
in by August
28
in
order not to have
to live with his parents
(5, 174),
A fourth had cancelled his order because of past de~-
lays the company attributed to the sewer ban
(5,
177);
there
is nothing we can do about that now.
As in the Spraying Systems case,
therefore, we see no great
hardship if Pulte must wait a month longer than it desires in
order to avoid pollution.
We note also that neither petitioner
introduced any evidence as
to efforts to make alternative
arrangements
such
as renting package treatment plants
(5.
116)
which
as we noted in a related case were
a possibility
(League
of
Women Voters v.
North Shore
Sanitary
District,
* 70~7,March
31,
1971).
Without such evidence
there
is inadequate proof of
hardship,
Moreover, Pulte was aware when
it first investigated
the
land in question that
the
treatment plant was already
dangerously loaded~(5,
125);
it
cannot very well claim surprise.
Further,
it had not commenced construction when our order was
handed down;
not caught with nearly completed homes on its
hand~,
it
seeks to start building now,
to conduct business as
usual without regard to the~pollutionthat would cause.
It
is argued that
July and
August were dry months
in
1970
(5,
17)
and therefore that
it
is
safe
to allow
an
additional
load
until the plant
is
finished.
But July
in
1968 and 1969
was not so dry;
flow exceeded
a million gallons per day on six
occasions in July 1968 and
on seven
in
July 1969, with three
July days
in
1969 over two million
(5, l00’~02), Although
the
plant can put two mgd through without overflowing,
it cannot
give adequate treatment
to more than
one mgd
(5.
27); and flows
over two mgd will cause
an overflow of raw sewage
(P.
30,
32,
189),
We cannot view these prospects with equanimity nor
rely
on
1971
to be
as dry
as 1970.
While
flows have been somewhat
reduced by measures to control infiltration
(5,
105),
that is
not
the big reason
~or
the
1969 high
glows;
the reason was heavy
rainfall
(5.
102).
It
is argued that as soon as
the
tertiary filters are on
line there will
be
adequate treatment even of excess f1ow~, Put
there is
no
evidence to show what quality
effluent
would result
from employing the filters on substantially undertreated sewage,
except an unsupported and unexplained conclusion that the village
believes the
4
ppm POD standard can
he
met with
1
1/2
mgd
(189),
or
to show the effect of such an effluent on the stream,
The
companies have not shown the addition of their wastes wo1h~d
be harmless or that its adverse effects would he outwei4hed by
the hardships they would suffer from denial of their petitions.
That the quantities of sewage involved in Sprayj~qSvs~n~sare
not huge
(2000
gpd)
is relevant but not decisive.~ Any single
source may appear insubstantial, but as we showed
in the North
Shore case it is the proliferation of small sources that can cause
an overpowering pollution problem.
And the amounts in issue in
Pulte are not all that small; we are asked to allow the addition
2
—
75
of 11,000 gpd each week,
for
a total
of 104,000 gpd by October
14
(5,
164),
If something went seriously wrong with the
Vil1age~sschedule, Pulte with a variance would add 10
of the
whole present capacity.
The principle of this decision is very simple:
New construction
must wait for adequate sewage treatment.
In this day and age
it
is
inexcusable
for
new
sources
of
waste
to operate without
pollution controls.
We see no
reason in thes& cases
to depart
from the salutary principle of the original Glendale
Heiqhts
case.
In all probability the delay will be only until
August
15,
The petitions for variance are denied.
This opthion
constitutes the Board’s findings of
fact, conclusions of
law,
and order.
I. Regina
E.
Ryan, Clerk of the Pollution Control
Roam-I,
certify
that
rd adopted
the above Opinion
and
Order this~
2—76