ILLINOIS

POLL1JTION CONTROL BOARD

April

7,

1983

CHARLES DRELICHARZ,

)

)

Complainant

)

)

vs.

)

PCB 82—90

)

METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT

)

OF GREATER CHICAGO,

)

)

Respondent.

MR. CHARLES DRELICHARZ APPEARED PRO SE.

MR.

ANTONI

E. WESOLOWSKI AND MR.

JACK

L.

SHANKMAN,

ATTORNEYS, APPEARED IN BEHALF

OF RESPONDENT.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by I.

G. Goodman):

On July 22,

1982, Charles Drelicharz

(Drelicharz) filed

a formal complaint

against

the Metropolitan Sanitary

District of Greater Chicago

(MSD)

alleging violation of

Section 9(a)

of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act

(Act).

A hearing was held in this matter on December 15,

1982,

and the Board has received no public comment.

The subject of this complaint

is MSD~sO’Hare Water

Reclamation facility located at 701 W.

Oakton Street in Des

Plaines,

Illinois.

The complaint alleges violation of

Section

9(a)

of the Act with regard to emission of odor so

as to cause or tend to cause air pollution.

The specific

violation alleged in this case occurred on the night of June

30,

1982.

Drelicharz testified that upon arriving at home,

he and his family detected a very foul odor and he immediately

called the

MSD

facility to complain, Drelicharz stated that

although he planned to stay outside for a little while, he

was unable to do so as the odor was too intense.

Drelicharz

subsequently contacted his alderman who put him in touch

with the environmental office of Des Plaines which

in turn

sent a complaint form resulting

in this action.

Under cross-

examination, Drelicharz stated that he had made no attempt

to determine the source of the odor before making his complaint.

52-15

---

Ms.

Joyce

Stramag~

t~t ~

~

that

8he

lived

a

few

blocks

north

o~ the

MSD

p1an~.

dii t~ctly across

the

street

from

Drelicharz

Ms~ Strarnagli

d

tc~stified

that

on

the

night

of

June

30,

1982~she smellod an odor while drivthg in the

vicinity of her

home~

She

described

the

odor as “like an

open sewer

to me~

and

stated

that

she

walked north to a

local

park

where

a

hasebal~

game

~as

in progress. Noting

that the odor

persi8ted,

although somewhat lessened from the

intensity near

her homes

she returned home about ii o’clock

at which

time she called the sewage plant and asked

if there

was anything

they could do

to rid the air of the odoi~, Mrs.

Barbara

Drelicharz testified to basically the same facts

that Drelicharz

had testLE~Ledto eariier~

Mr.

Art

Sherman

test~fi~d

on

behalf

of

MSD.

Sherman

is

the manager of

the O~Hareplant and indicated that he had

checked the records

of June 3O~t982, noting that there had

been a sudden

wind

change

from

north

to

south

approximately

at the time

here

in queer Lone Sherman testified that upon

receipt of the

compla~nLthL tac~iitycommenced application

of sodium

hypochlorite to

~tIe

mv

~iewage

which,

he states,

is standard

operating

practLoe~

Se

estimated

that

there

was

a lag of one half

hour

to

4~minut?~e

from

the

time

of

appli-

cation until the

odor

suppreesioli

~~ouid

be effective.

Sherman testified

that

the

facility

does

not

treat

the

sewage

when

the wind

direction

is

from

the north due

to the

lack

of

residences

south

of

~he

~iiLrnt

and the fact that the

plant

had

never

received

n

from

any

region south

of

the

plant.

Sherman

mnd!ou~cd

~

24SD

does

not

exercise

odor

suppression

continuort

~o

the

cost

of

the

chlorine

and

the

fact

that

t~~

~s

a

pollutants.

Sherman

estimated

that

continuous

I

:~tme

~ov~d

cost

$1RO,000

per

year

or

more.

It was est~im~t~

~.

I

~1.

~5,OOO

worth of chlorine

had

been

utilized

already

I~

o

thL~t timed

which

was

the

middle

of December~

Under

cross~’examination1

Sler~an

indicated that MSD

uses

the

oxidation

reduction

potent

L~i

of

the

sewage

to

anticipate

the

possib~e

productrci

~,t

odors

and

correlates

that

with

wind direction

i~r~

rl~

t~

istermine

when

odor

suppression

shall he

used

He

~

~idicated

that

odor

suppression

is

initiated

~

r~

vo

to

a

complaint

of

odors

from

residents

notwithet

srv~

~

i’her

rnformation.

In

addition

Sherman

testtiied

~ :~dreceived

four

phone

complaints

that

evenir~4,

Drelicharz

argues

that’

undeo

th

ACtfr

no air contam~

inants

should

be

discharged

Lf

to

the

atmosphere without

being

given

treatment

or

control

necessary

to

prevent

pollution.

He

feels

that

the

areas

generating

the odor should be covered

somehow,

or

some

method

should

he

developed

so

that

odors

can

be

stopped

prior to leaving MSD~sproperty rather than

---

3

relying on manual operation of equipment pursuant to wind

direction.

MSD argues that Drelicharz has not carried his

burden of proof as to the odor and the source,

pointing out

that no one had attempted to see exactly what the source of

the odor was.

In the alternative, MSD argues that if indeed

the odors were emitted by the facility, they have done

everything possible to abate the odor and that continuous

abatement would be detrimental

to the environment and very

expensive.

Finally, MSD argues that the testimony has shown

that there is an attempt by MSD

to

react to complaints which

do come

in by immediately

starting

treatment,

whatever

the

wind direction is.

Although the testimony on behalf of the petitioner is

somewhat sketchy, that testimony coupled with the admissions

by MSD concerning the number of

complaiftts at the particular

time

in question is sufficient to find that the odor

in

question did emanate from MSD’s facility.

On November

12,

1982,

the Board issued an Opinion and Order in a similar

matter, Kraua, et al. v Metropolitan Sanitary District

of Greater Chicago, PCB

~8t-76.

The Board hereby takes official

notice of that Opinion and Order.

In Kraus, with regard to

the odor portion of the complaint,

the Board

found that

“although there is no question as to the social and economic

value of the MSD facility,

that value is diminished when the

operation of that facility results in air pollution which

can admittedly be prevented.”

In Kraus, as

in this case,

the character and degree of interference with the protection

of the health, general welfare,

and physical property of the

people is not great.

That interference must be balanced,

however, against the technical practicability and economic

reasonableness of reducing or eliminating the odors.

In this

case, the technical abi.itv

to suores.c th~

nñors w~sdemon-

strated and the showing of economic unreasonableness is not

persuasive.

In this case,

as

in Kraus, the

area in which

the source is

located appears to be the crux of the situation.

In Kraus we stated “MSD was well aware of the residential

nature of the area when it built the facility.

Charged with

this knowledge, MSD must be held to a high degree ot care

not to impose the burden of the odors which are inherent in

such a facility upon its neighbors”,

The Board finds that

that statement applies as well

to

this case.

MSD is there-

fore found in violation of Section 9(a) of the Act by allowing

the discharge of odor into the environment so as to cause or

to tend to cause air pollution.

The Board shall order MSD

to cease and desist further violations of Section 9(a) of

the Act and shall impose a penalty of $1,000 for the violation

found.

Although Eraus carried a similar order to cease and

52-17

---

case.

In Kraus,

MSD

stated

that

it

was

preparing

to

add

the

odor suppression

chlorine automatically

by

computer

in

the

future.

The Board

trusts

that

MSD

will do as

it

says

since

it is now on notice

in two separate cases that it must cease

and desist its

violations of the Act,

This Opinion constitutes the finding of facts

and con-

clusions of law

of the ~oard in this matter,

ORDER

1.

The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago

is found

in violation of Section 9(a) of the Environ~

mental

Protection

Act

at

ii:s

facility

located

in

Des

Plaines,

Illinois,

2.

The

Metropolitan

Sanitary

District

of

Greater

Chicago

shall

cease

and desist

further

such

violations

of

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Act,

3.

The

Metropolitan

Sanitary

D:istrict

of

Greater

Chicago

shall

pay

a

penalty

for

the

violation

noted

in

the

amount

of

$1,000.

Within

forty~five

days

of the date

of

this

Order,

the Metropolitan Sanitary District

of

Greater Chicago

shall pay, by certified check or money

order payable

to the State of Illinois, the penalty of

$1,000 which

is

to

be

sent

to:

Illinois Environmental

Protection

Agency,

Fiscal. Services Division,

2200

Churchill

Road, Springfield~~Illinois

62706.

IT IS SO

ORDERED~

I,

christan

L,

Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois pollution

Control

Board,

hereb

~ertifv

that

the

ah~v

Opinion

and

Order

was

adopted

o~the

cy

of

_______,

1983

by

a

vote

of

~S

-

(I

Illinois Poiluti

Board