ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October

26,

1971

MARS DEVELOPMENT CO.

v.

)

 71—218

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

MARVIN WASSERMAN et al.

v.

)

 71—219

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Opinion and Order

 of the Board

 (by Mr. Currie):

These consolidated petitions

 seek variances to allow the

connection of thirty-three

 new homes

and

 a department store to sewers

tributary to the Waukegan sewage treatment plant of the North

Shore Sanitary D:strict,

 a plant which, because

of

 its overloaded

condition,

is

 subject

to

 the prohibition

 of new sewer connections

imposed in ~ 70—7,

 League

 of Women Voters v.

 North Shore Sanitary

District

 (March

31,

 1971).

Because construction had not begun at the time the ban was

imposed,

 the connections here sought do not come within the precedent

of such cases as Wachta

EPA

 71—77

 (July 12,

 1971);

 we are

not

faced with

 bhe Drospect of finished or half—completed buildings

standing vacant prey to vandals and vermin.

 Wachta and other cases,

e.g.,

 Wagnon

 EPA,

 # 71-83

 (July 19,

 1971)

 have made clear

 that

in

 the absence of other compelling circumstances

 it i~insufficient

that such imerovements

 as sewer

 and water lines and streets have

been constructed,

as

 they have

 in this case,

 since the improvements

will still be there when the treatment plant is upgraded and the

ban

 liftecL

 The impact of expenditures

 for such improveittents

in

the present cases, moreover,

is

 lessened further by the fact that

the improvements

 are presently servicing fifty-three existing

homes in the same

 subdivision as well as

 a National Tea store

(R.

 129).

 Nor have we in

the

 eresent cases

 the special hardship

involved

 interdicting

 a project that would provide housing

for

those of

inacleguate

means

those

oresent

living

conditions

are

intolerable

as

McAclams

EPA,

#

71-113

(August

1971)

Patricia

Development

Co.

EPA,

71-161

(September

16,

1971).

The

present

cases,

however,

present

ingenious

new

 twist

that prompted

us

 to hold

 a hearing in the hopes that it

could

demcn~trated

that

the

connection

would

not

have

adverse

effect

upon

the

environment.

The

petitioners

propose

construct

four

10,000-gallon

holding

tanks,

which

assertecily

will

suffice

collect

and

 hold

 two days

 accumulation

 of wastes not only

 from their own

2

689

proposed new buildings but from the existing homes and store

in

the subdivision

 as well.

 This waste would then be discharged at

night, when present flows

 to the treatment plant are

 at their

lowest

(R.

 206—07, 219—21,

 253,

 255).

 The intention is to take

advantage of

 the fact that, although

 the plant is badly overloaded

in the daytime,

it

is

 in much better condition at night.

Flow records from the North Shore Sanitary District corroborated

this important

 fact insofar

 as dry weather flow is concerned,

 Raymond

Anderson,

 General Manager of the District,

 testified that additional

flows up to the rate of one quarter

 to one half million gallons per

day could be given secondary treatment and chlorination, within

the design capacity

 of the

 plan.t,

 on dry nights

(R.

 172-73,

 177,

184—85).

 If this were

 the whole of

 the matter, we should happily

grant the variance.

Unfortunately, however,

 the proposed program does not provide

adequately

 fcr avoiding an adverse impact during wet weather, which

is when the plant is most drastically overloaded

 already.

Mr.

Anderson ~testified

that,

 in order

 to avoid

 an additional overload

wet

 weather

that

cou’d

not

adequately

treated,

five-day

holding

capacity

should

provided

CR.

174).

According

the

petitioners’

own

computations1

the

most

that

will

provided

two days,

 at the end

 of which sewage must be

 and is to be discharged

without regard

 to the condition of the tre~tinentplantr

 in order

 avoid

 the backup of sewage into

 the buildings

(R.

 231,

 239-41).

1.

 A question was raised as to the adequacy

 of the tanks to hold

even two days’

 sewage,

 since

 the design figure used,

 taken

from secondary studies, was

 51 gallons per capita per day, while

the customary figure,

 as testified to by

 Mr. Anderson,

is

100

to 125

CR.

 178).

 The petitioners’ witness testified that

the

higher figure was based upon

 the assumption that domestic dis-

charges will be augmented by industrial discharges

 and that

it represented not

 a house discharge. but the input

to

 a treat-

ment plant

CR.

 244-25),

 This position is largely confirmed

by

 a leading text

 in the

 field,

 of which we

 take official

 notice.

Fair,

 Geyer,

 Okun, Water Supply

 and Wastewater Removal,

 vol.

I,

pp.

 2—2,

 3—9

 (1966),

 indicating that

 150 gpcd

is

a

 “useful

guide

 to normal requirements”

 for community needs

 in designing

water—supply systems;

 that about

70

 of the water supplied

becomes wastewater;

 and that therefore

 “the average flow in

sanitary sewers

 is about

 100 gpcd.”

 This estimate seems to in—

 dude

 not only the discharge from individual homes but

the

entire dry—weather flow of the

 sewers.

 We are of course open

to

more specific proof

 in future cases.

690

Moreover,

 the petitioners’

 testimony suggests that during wet

weather there may be discharges

 even before the two days are up

because of infiltration:

A.

 (Mr. Villa) A storm occurring

 in the area

 at the

 time

 this

constant sewage generation

 is occurring, we would pick

up infiltration here.

Q.

 Under such circumstances,

 I take it

 it would be necessary

then to operate the bypasses or weirs,

 as you have called

them,

 continuously?

A.

 Yes,

 so that

 it operates essentially

 as the system operates

right now.

CR.

 255).

In short, while

the

 idea of the holding tank to equalize

 flows

and take advantage

 of excess night treatment capacity is excellent,

we

 find

 the holding tanks proposed

 are insufficient

 to protect

against increased

 loads to

 the Waukegan plant at the

 time

it

is

 least

able to handle them,

 namely, during wet weather.

 We must there-

fore deny

 the variance on this record,

 leaving the door open to

a

further petition that will give assurance

 of adequate capacity to

do

 the intended job.

We call attention to one further difficulty that should be

addressed

if

 an amended petition

 is filed.

 There was no evidence

to show that the holding tanks themselves would be adequ~tely

protected against dangers of corrosion, explosion,

 or odor nuisance.

We raise these issues not

 idly but in response to testimony presented

by

 the Agency and by others

 in regard to

 a holding

 tank proposal

in the recently decided case of School Building Commission v.

 EPA,

~ 71-247

 (October

18,

 1971).

 The burden will

 be on the petitioners

to establish this point.

For

 the reasons given the variances are denied without prejudice

to the filing of an amended petition satisfying the questions

raised

 in this opinion.

I,

 Regina E.

 Ryan, Clerk

 of the Pollution Control Board,

 certify

that the Board adopted the above Opinion

 and Order this

26

day of

 October

1971

—

691