ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    February
    14, 1974
    Apple Orchard Utility Company, Inc., and
    )
    Village of Bartlett (Intervenor)
    Petitioners,
    PCB 72—383
    VS.
    Environmental Protection Agency,
    Respondent.
    Jeffrey N. Randall, Attorney, on behalf of Apple Orchard
    Utility Company, Inc.;
    Edward S. Mraz, Attorney, on behalf of Village of Bartlett;
    George Wolff and J)ennis Fields, Attorneys, on behalf of
    Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Seaman):
    On September 26, 1972, Apple Orchard Utility Company,
    Inc. filed its Petition For Variance. On November 30, 1972,
    amendments to the Petition were filed and on January ‘3, 1974,
    Petitioner submitted an Amended Petition For Variance which
    is substantially different from the original. A hearing
    was held in this matter on January 8, 1974, and Respondent and
    Petitioner filed their Closing Statements on January 17, 1974
    and January 22, 1974, respectively. By an Order of this Board,
    dated December 13, 1973, we allowed a motion by the Village
    of Bartlett to intervene.
    Petitioner is engaged in operating pipelines, mains,
    equipment and facilities for the transportation, sale and
    delivery of water and the transportation, treatment
    and
    disposul of domestic sewage, Petitioner~s sewage treatment
    plant includes a wet well, raw sewage pumps, a spirogester, a
    trickling filter and final clarification and chlorination
    equipment (R. 24)
    .
    Petitioner serves 104 homes in the Apple
    Orchard subdivision, located in the Village of Bartlett,
    County of Cook, Illinois (R. 24)
    .
    Industrial wastes are not
    treated (R. 23)
    .
    The design capacity of Petitioner~’ plant
    is 260,000 gallons per day (R. 47).
    Petitioner states that the metered daily
    flows
    and average
    weekly HOD5 are as follows:
    ~ —247
    —2—
    Suspended
    Month
    Flow (gal.)
    BOD (mg/i)
    Solids (mg/i)
    Dec. 1972
    337,800
    24.5
    1.0
    Jan. 1973
    619,300
    4,6
    0.2
    Feb. 1973
    360,600
    21.2
    1.0
    March 1973
    360,900
    7.2
    0
    April 1973
    388,000
    3.0
    0
    May 1973
    360,000
    2.5
    0
    June 1973
    360,000
    7.6
    0
    July 1973
    360,000
    7.5
    0
    Aug. 1973
    350,000
    2.3
    0
    Sept. 1973
    282,500
    2.1
    0
    Oct. 1973
    20~,500
    2.8
    0
    Nov. 1973
    200,750
    0.4
    0
    Petitioner has a major infiltration problem and the
    Record indicates the need for a great deal of maintenance
    and remedial work on its facility (R. 179-184). Residents
    of the Apple Orchard subdivision, served by Petitioner,
    testified that raw sewage frequently backed up into their
    basements and yards (R. 204, 209, 213).
    Petitioner estimates that the cost of improvements
    suggested by the Agency in order to bring its facility
    into compliance would be approximately $100,500.00,
    The Village of Bartlett, intervenor herein, is in the
    process of constructing a new 2.275 MGD wastewater treatment
    facility on a site approximately one mile west of Petitioner’s
    plant (R. 118). The Bartlett fapility is expected to be
    operational by November, 1974 CR. 117). Petitioner states
    that it has reached a tentative agreement with the Village
    of Bartlett for the purchase of Petitioner’s assets CR. 83).
    Petitioner’s Exhibit #2 is a Resolution of the Board of
    Trustees of the Village of Bartlett which authorizes the
    Village Attorney to draft or review a contract for sale.
    This~is, of course, only evidence of an intent to purchase ani
    the terms of the contract are not firm.
    Petitioner argues, however, that the contract signing
    is eminent and that a trunk line will be constructed to
    divert the sewage which presently issues into Petitioner’s
    plant to the new plant. Petitioner submits, therefore, that
    it would be unreasonable for it to bring its facility into
    compliance at great expense when its facility will be closed
    as soon as the trunk line is completed.
    Although the evidence is incomplete, and often contra~
    dictory, we are satisfied that there exists a good pos~::~iity
    that Petitioner’s operation will soon be phased out ar~ ~iat
    the sewage will be diverted to the new facility. Howivir,
    a contract for sale has not been signed and we will not
    11—248
    —3—
    speculate as to the terms thereof or whether said terms
    will abate the violations. Further, it would be
    unwarranted, under the facts before us at present, to,
    in effect, order Petitioner to proceed with improvements
    which may never be used.
    We feel that the most prudent remedy in the instant
    cause is to grant a brief variance. It appears that
    the critical issues of fact will be resolved shortly.
    At that time the parties will be in a position to put
    before this Board a clear presentation of the circumstance
    which have evolved, Petitioner is put on notice that
    should it seek a variance in the future to operate the
    subject plant, a clear and definite program for the abatement
    of all of the violations caused by its total operation will
    be necessary before favorable action by this Board may be
    expected.
    This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and
    conclusions of law of the Board.
    ORDER
    IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that
    Petitioner, Apple Orchard Utility Company, Inc., be granted
    a variance to operate its sewage treatment plant for a
    period of 90 days from the date of this Order.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Mr. Dumelle and Dr. Odell dissent.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, certify t1~atthe above Opinion and Order
    was adopted on this J~j~ day of
    ~
    1974
    by a vote of
    ~
    11
    —
    249

    Back to top