ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November
12,
1982
KRAUS, et al.,
Complainants,
V.
)
PCB 81—76
METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT
OF
GREATER
CHICAGO,
Respondent.
MR.
THEODORE
KRAtJS
APPEARED
PRO
SE.
MR.
ANTONI
E. WESOLOWSKI AND MR. JACK
L.
SUANKMAN
APPEARED
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by I.
G.
Goodman):
On March 30,
1981,
eleven Des Plaines, Illinois citizens
filed virtually identical Complaints alleging violation of
the
Board’s Air Pollution Control Regulations by the O’Hare Water
Reclamation Facility of the Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater Chicago (MSD).
In the interest of administrative
economy,
and with the acquiescense of the Complainants,
the Board dismissed all of the Complaints save Docket No. PCB
81-76 and granted leave for all other Complainants
to partici-
pate in that matter.
Hearing was held on May 17,
1982, at
which Complainant, Mr.
Theodore Kraus
(Kraus), appeared
Se.
Various citizens were introduced by Kraus and testi-
fied on behalf of Complainant.
The Board has received public
comment in this matter.
The subject of this Complaint is MSD’s O’Hare Water Recla—
ination Plant located at 701 West Oakton Street in Des Plaines,
Illinois.
The Complaint alleges violation by the MSD facility
of Rule
102 of Chapter
2:
Air Pollution of the Board’s Rules
and Regulations.
Rule
102 is
a general prohibition of air
pollution
in the State of Illinois.
A second count alleges
violation of Rule 203(f)(l),
Fugitive Particulate Matter.
This rule prohibits the emission of fugitive particulate matter
into the environment which is generally visible by a person
observing at a point beyond the property line of the emission
source.
The alleged violations of the rules occurred when
quantities of airborne aerosol
foam allegedly containing con-
centrations of pathogenic bacteria and viruses were emitted
from the aeration basins at the MSD facility and were carried
across the property line by the prevailing winds.
It was further
49-267
2
alleged that the violations occurred on February 7,
8, and
9,
1981 and the Complaint asks that the Board order the aeration
tanks to be covered and to impose suitable control measures to
prevent bacteria and virus emissions from the plant.
During the course of the hearing, MSD objected to testimony
concerning odor violations alleging that the Complaint did not
specifically mention such violations.
The hearing officer ruled
that since Rule 102 of Chapter
2 is a general prohibition of air
pollution and since the odor situation had been addressed at a
pre-hearing conference, the allegation of air pollution was
broad enough to encompass testimony on odor and MSD could not
claim surprise.
(R. 14—15.)
The Board affirms the hearing
officer’s ruling and construes odor violations to be part of
the Complaint herein.
A number of citizens testified concerning the violations
alleged in the Complaint.
Mr.
Kraus testified that early one
morning
in February, 1981 he observed foam coming from the MSD
facility across the street and into his backyard.
In addition,
he testified to periodic episodes of odors, which he described
as sewer gas,
since the construction of the plant.
He also
stated that prior to construction of the plant MSD had, at pub-
lic hearings, assured the residents that there would be no foam,
odors or unknown bacteria emitted from the proposed facility.
Subsequent citizen witnesses testified about the foam episode
which apparently occurred early on February 9,
1981, and inter-
mittent odor episodes since construction of the facility.
Mr.
Zych, who lives in the immediate area, described the odor as
sewer gas and stated that he had complained frequently to MSD,
admitting under cross—examination that he had observed no foam
since the February,
1981 episode.
(R.
20.)
Mrs.
Samson, who lives near
the aeration tanks which are
apparently the source of the foam, stated she had seen the foam
more than once and described it as “an over abundance of deter-
gents in a dishwasher.” She also stated that she had not observed
the foam recently.
Ms. Peterson, who lives across the street, has noticed the
foam only once but has experienced frequent odor episodes and
had,
in fact,
just recently complained to MSD.
Ms. Peterson indicated
that the odor episodes generally stop within fifteen minutes after
she complains to MSD.
(R.
30.)
Ms. Peterson’s roommate, Ms. Blaha,
described the foam as appearing like “cottonwood seeds.”
Ms.
Blaha
stated
she called MSD frequently complaining about the odor and
indicated that the intensity of the odor was varied.
She also
stated that she has not observed foam since the February,
1981
incident but had experienced difficulty with some of her house
plants and had experienced a fungus growth on her body.
(R.
34.)
Under cross—examination,
Ms. Blaha admitted that she could not
connect the plant and fungus problem directly with the MSD
facility
across the street.
49-268
3
Mr. Lindahi,
the Environmental Officer for the City of Des
Plaines, testified that he had received a number of complaints
from residents on February
9,
1981 regarding the foam episode.
(R.
37.)
Mr.
Lindahl stated that he had not personally observed
any foam outside the MSD facility boundaries.
Ms.
Jensen, who
lives directly across the street from the facility, entered into
the record as Kraus Exhibit No.
1,
a handwritten record of dates
of odor and foam observations along with her personal comments.
This record contains dates
from
the middle of 1980 until
April,
1982.
She noted that she had observed foam on the MSD property
on April
17,
1982 and upon reporting it to MSD she observed a num-
ber of men hosing the foam down.
Ms. Jensen further testified that
there have been episodes of very bad odors recently which forces
her to close the windows in her house.
Ms.
Jensen testified that
MSD personnel were always polite when she called to complain.
The Honorable Richard Ward, an alderman in Des Plaines, testified
as an individual and not on behalf of the City.
Though he had
not observed the foam himself, he had received complaints from
citizens.
(R.
75.)
MSD presented testimony which tended to explain what caused
the problems and to outline what MSD had done to correct the
situation.
Mr. Knight,
Assistant Chief Engineer of MSD, indi-
cated that the foam episode had indeed occurred on February 9,
1981 and explained that it had been caused by a series of factors
related to the weather and continuing construction of the facility.
The foam was apparently created in an aeration tank which was still
under construction and due to weather conditions had not yet been
equipped with water spray foam suppression nozzles.
Engineers at
the facility were wasting excess aeration air through the unfin-
ished tank which,
although not in operation, contained a high
quality secondary effluent which generated a large amount of
foam when subjected to the excess aeration.
MSD was unable to cor~—
trol the foam due to the lack of suppression spray equipment.
(R.
92.)
MSD Exhibit No.
1 contains photographs of the aeration
tanks in question.
In addition,
Mr. Knight indicated that he and
his subordinates had received “considerably more than ten” com-
plaints concerning odor but had been unable to verify the com-
plaints upon investigation.
He also indicated that MSD was able
to and did suppress odors occurring in the plant.
Mr.
Sherman, manager of the MSD facility, testified con-
cerning the procedures used by MSD to solve the foam problem.
He indicated that the aeration level
and frequency has been
reduced and the area from which the foam was generated has been
taken out of service.
In addition, certain foam suppresion
sprays are operated 100
of the time.
(R.
99.)
In Mr. Sherman’s
estimated, the foam problem has been corrected.
With regard to
the odor problem,
Mr. Sherman testified that the major odor
problem at the plant comes from the raw sewage as it passes into
the
plant.
The sewage is sampled continuously and an operator
uses that information along with the direction and speed of the
wind to determine the potential
for creation of odors.
Chlorine
is
added
manually
by
the
operator
to
suppress
the
generation
of
49-269
4
odors.
MSD is preparing to add the odor suppression chlorine
automatically by computer in the future.
Mr.
Sherman explained
the
intermittent
occurrences
of
odors
as
being
the
time
between
the discovery of the odor problem or its potential and the addi-
tion of the suppression chlorine.
(R.
110.)
In response to ques-
tioning,
Mr.
Sherman indicated that the suppression chlorine
is
not
added
continuously
due
to
the
cost
involved.
The question of bacteria or viruses being emitted from the
facility as aerosols was addressed by the parties
in a very cur-
sory manner.
Kraus was unable to present any evidence concerning
this
subject
and
MSD
merely
presented
MSD
Exhibit
No.
2,
a
deci-
sion by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to rescind a
special condition to its construction grant which required MSD to
construct aerosol
suppression equipment at the facility, indica-
ting that a study had shown that no direct or indirect health
hazards
result
from
exposure
to
aerosols.
As construed by the Board, the Complaint contains three
areas
of
alleged violation:
emission of particulate matter as
evidenced by the foam
episode;
emission
of
odor
into
the
atmos-
phere; and emission of aerosols potentially carrying bacteria
and/or viruses.
The
Board
finds the aerosol issue has not been
addressed
sufficiently
for
the
Board
to
consider
in
this
case,
and
dismisses
that portion of the Complaint.
With
regard
to
the
foam,
the
Board
finds
that
MSD
did,
on
at
least one occasion, violate Rule 203(f)(1) of Chapter
2 in that
it
caused
the
emission
of
Fugitive
Particulate
Matter
beyond
its
boundaries.
In mitigation of this violation
is the fact that
it
has apparently occurred but once
and
that
MSD
has
taken
measures
to
insure
that
the
foam
no
longer
goes
beyond
its
property
line.
In
aggravation
of
this
violation
is
the
fact
that
MSD
was
aware
o
the potential creation
of
foam
and
indeed
had
equipped
most
of
the
facility
with
a
means
of
suppressing
the
foam.
Considering
the
facts
of
this
case
and
the
criteria
of
Section
33(c)
of
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act,
(Act)
the
Board
finds
that
a
penalty
for
the
violation
of
Rule
203(f)(l)
would
not
serve
to
further
the purposes of the Act.
Nonetheless,
the Board shall order MSD
to cease and desist further violations of this rule.
Upon review of the record, the Board finds that MSD has vio-
lated Rule
102 of Chapter
2:
Air Pollution Control Regulations
by allowing the discharge of odor into the environment.
Since
for
the
purposes
of
this
violation
Rule
102
is
a
restatement
of
Section
9(a)
of
the
Act
under
which
most
odor
violations
are
found
by
the
Board,
the
Board
shall
construe
the
Complaint
as
alleging violation of Section
9(a) of the Act and shall
find
violation
by
MSD
of
that section.
Although there is no ques-
tion as
to the social and economic value of the MSD facility,
that
value
is
diminshed
when
the
operation
of
the
facility
resulti
in air pollution which can admittedly be prevented.
The character
and
degree
of interference with the protection of the health,
general welfare,
and physical property of the people in this case
49-270
5
is not great.
The interference must be balanced, however, against
the technical practicability and economic reasonableness of reduc-
ing or eliminating the odors.
In this case, the technical practi-
cability of elimnation of odors was admitted and there was no
showing that it was economically unreasonable to execute this
technology.
The suitability of the pollution source to the area
in which
it is located appears to be the
crux
of
the
situation.
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 of care
not
to
impose
the
burden
of
the
odors which
are
inherent
in
such
a
facility
upon
its
neighbors.
The
Board
shall
therefore
order
MSD
to
cease
and
desist
further
violations
of
Section
9(a)
of
the
Act
and
shall
impose
a
penalty
of
$2,500.00
for
the
violation
found.
This Opinion constitutes a finding of facts and conclusions
of law of the Board in this matter.
ORDER
1.
The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago is
found in violation of Section
9(a) of the Environmental
Protection
Act
and
Rules
102
and
203(f)(1)
of
Chapter
2:
Air
Pollution
Control Regulations at its 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 and the Board’s Rules and
Regulations.
3.
The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago shall
pay a penalty for the violations noted in the amount of
$2,500.00.
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 $2,500.00 which is to be sent to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
Fiscal Services
Division,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield,
Illinois
62706.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Board Chairman Dumelle concurred.
I,
Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Bo~rd,hereby certify that the above Order was adopted
on the
J~L~”~
day of
_____________,
1982 by a vote of
~
Christan L. Moffe~t~JJ~1erk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
49-271