ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November

11,

1971

METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT

OF GREATER CHICAGO

v.

)

#

71—183

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Allan

S. Lavin

and Paul

D.

Lindauer for Metropolitan Sanitary District

Roger Ganobcik and Thomas McMahon for

the Environmental Protection Agency

Opinion of the Board

(by Mr.

Currie):

The Metropolitan Sanitary District seeks

a variance from the

effluent and treatment requirements

of Rules

and Regulations

SWB-l4.

We deny

the variance

for reasons given below.

The District operates

a small trickling filter plant for

sewage treatment at Streamwood.

Designed

to treat 1.2 million

gallons per day,

it has become grievously overloaded by the continued

allowance

of increased waste discharges that there

is

no capacity

to treat.

The average dry weather flow

is today nearly 20

above capacity, and the overload

is greater during rains.

Treat-

ment efficiency has declined from 88,

which

is reasonably good

secondary treatment,

to 70

in 1970, which is not

(R.. 10—12,

18,

37,

129).

Rules

and Regulations SWB-14, adopted

in 1967, require the

construction

of additional facilities, quite apart from the

question of overload,

in order to provide tertiary treatment afford-

ing

an effluent containing no more than

4 mg/l

of biochemical

oxygen demand and

5 mg/l of suspended solids, because, as

the

record here makes clear

(R.

145-46)

,

there is so little flow in

the receiving stream during portions of the year that the effluent

is virtually

the entire stream.

Provision for control of storm

water overflows

and bypasses

is also required.

Submission of

plans for these facilities was required

in January,

1971; construction

contracts were to be

let by

July;

and the facilities are required

to be in full operation by July,

1972.

It

is from these requirements that the present petition

seeks relief.

The District has

not submitted the plans

that

were required nearly

a year

ago, nor awarded the contracts

as

it was required to do by

last July.

Even at the date of hearing

in October the District did not commit itself to any program for

achieving compliance with the regulations.

The evidence shows

that the District

is considering several alternative plans

CR.

61-72)

3

—

57

---

most prominent

of which

are

the construction of

a new 7.4 mgd

plant with advanced treatment to serve the whole Poplar Creek area

(R.

66)

and

a joint project with the Elgin Sanitary District

for expansion

of the latter’s secondary facilities with discharge

of the effluent

to the Fox River

CR. 72)J

The Poplar Creek

plant was

the District’s

idea, but

it ran afoul of

the regionalization

policies of the Northeastern

Illinois Planning Commission,

which has refused to aporove the plant for

federal or state financial

aid

(R.

80-83,

102).

The Elgin Sanitary District has appeared

less than enthusiastic about the proposed

joint facility

(R.

84,

105—06)

,

but at latest word had agreed

to participate

in

a study

of

the possibility

CR.

110).

In the meantime pollution goes on.

The District testified that even

if construction of the Poplar

Creek plant——not yet designed——began

as

soon as is possible today

compliance could not be achieved until some

time in 1975

(R.

71—72)

And

the District is not

committed

to

starting that construction.

In place

of

a program

for meeting the tertiary treatment

requirement,

the District seeks approval of

a plan for providing

interim improvements to

the existing facility in hopes that

doing so will make

it possible

for still more new homes to be

connected

to

the plant, although

there

is

no suggestion that

the

improvements will come

close

to

complying with what

is required.

The

proposal

is

to

construct

facultative

lagoon

to

provide

some

degree

of

treatment

for

flows

ii’.

excess

of

the

capacity

ct

the

trickling

filter

(P.

12—13)

.

Even

at

the

outset,

the

lagoon

will

be

incapable

o:E

producing

an

effluent

meeting

existing

standards

for

secondary

treatment

(P.

32)

,

much

less

the

tertiary

treatment

that

is

recruired

by

next

July.

Further,

the

District’s

own

evidenco

is

that

the

rerformance

of

the

lagoon

will

progressive-

ly

degenerate

as

additional

wastes

are

added,

so

that

by

the

beginning

of

1975-—before

any

permanent

facility

can

be

completed

according

to

this

record—-its

treatment

efficiency

will

be

little

better

than

that

of

the

presently

overloaded

trickling

filter,

and

the

‘total

flow

of

effluent

will

have

increased

considerably

(P.

16,

18,

49,

57).

The

program

also

contemplates

chlorination

of

the

lagoon

effluent

in

a

contact

chamber

(P.

13)

,

but

at

least

until

the

time

of

the

hearing

the

District

had

no

plans

to

provide

adequate

retention

time

for

the

effluent

from

the

trickling

filter

itself,

which

is

now

given

disinfection

on

the

run

(F.

39)

with

the

result

that

the

receiving

stream

is

alarmingly

high

in

bacteria.

The

essence

of

a

variance,

as we have pointed out

before

(e.g.,

Swords

v.

EPA,

#70—6,

Sept.

2,

1970; Mt.

Carmel Public

Utility

Co.

v.

EPA,

#

71-15, April

14,

1971; Flintkote Co.

v.

EPA,

# 71-68, November

11,

1971)

,

is

a firm and adequate program

for achieving compliance with the regulations

1n the shortest

1.

The Agency’s objection to evidence

as

to the District’s plans

for meeting the advanced treatment requirements was misplaced.

This,

as said below,

is

‘,ihat

the case

is

all about.

3—58

---

practicable time.

There

is

no such program here.

We have

no commitment from the District to build anything to comply with

the advanced treatment requirements,

for the District has

not

decided whether to build

its own plant or

to join with Elgin.

We have no date for expected compliance.

We are asked to grant

an open—ended extension of time

for compliance with this extreme-

ly important regulation while the District tries once again to

get approval

for federal and state help.

But years

have gone

by and nothing has been done.

As we have held elsewhere,

the

desire that others help foot the bill

is no excuse for continuing

to pollute;

the obligation

is that of the Sanitary District to

meet the regulations by whatever means are available

(City of

Mattoon v.

EPA,

#

71-8, April

14,

1971; Durand Sanitary District

V.

EPA,

# 71—317, October 14,

1971).

Similarly, while we have had several occasions

to express

our endorsement

of regionalization of sewage treatment in order

to avoid the proliferation of uneconomic and unreliable small

treatment plants

(see DuPage County Regionalization,

*R 70-17,

proposed regulation and explanation,

June

9,

1971;

Gages Lake

Sanitary District v.

EPA,

#

71-104,

September

16,

1971; EPA

v.

City of Silvis,

#

71—157

(October

18,

1971)

,

we do not believe

that necessary measures for

the abatement of existing pollution

should be generally or long delayed while painful plans are made

for

joint treatment facilities.

In

‘the present case, moreover,

the preference of the Planning Commission

for

the

joint facility

seems

to be based largely upon the

fact that under present

regulations

sewage pumped to

the Fox

River need be given only

secondary treatment, with attendant cost

savings.

See NIPC

letter

of Aug.

30,

1971, and attachments.

In League of Women

Voters

v. North Shore Sanitary District,

# 70-7,

March

31,

1971, we rejected

a similar proposal on the ground that

the small

cost savings did not justify

the

less adequate treatment.

While

we do not say the

facts relative

to Streamwood

and Elgin would

require us to reach the same conclusion,

it

is also relevant to

note that the present provision

for secondary treatment on the

Fox

is not necessarily immutable;

that river has been prominently

mentioned for special protection

as

a scenic river,

and it

already receives

a heavy load of secondary

effluents’.

Dilution

with someone else’s secondary effluent is not the equivalent of

dilution with clean stream water,

and additional treatment may

be

found necessary on the Fox as well.

In short, there

is neither an adequate program for complying

with SWB—l4 nor an adequate excuse

for the delays so far incurred

in doing

so.

The case

is

thus distinguishable from Metropolitan

Sanitary District v.

EPA,

*71-166

(September

16,

1971),

(Orland

Park), where

the delay was due

to problems with

a contractot’s

performance and

a definite and reasonably short program for

compliance was presented.

3—59

---

Moreover,

the proposed interim measures are inadequate to

provide

the best practicable treatment until compliance

is

achieved.

If the problem were simply additional retention time

for disinfecting

the filter effluent, we could order

that to be

provided on the basis of

the record

(R.

40).

But the quality

of

the effluent from the proposed lagoon will be unsatisfactory

even at the beginning,

and it will be wholly unacceptable

long

before advanced treatment can be provided.

No provision

is made,

as

it was by the same District to deal with an interim situation

at Orland Park

(Metropolitan

Sanitary District

v.

EPA,

#

71—166,

supra)

,

for the use of chemicals

‘to aid in precipitation of

objectionable materials

(F.

46-47).

No consideration was given

to

the possibility, conceded by the District in testimony

to

be probably more satisfactory, that placing the filter and

lagoon

in series rather than

in parallel might significantly

improve overall performance

(P.

50-51)

.

Too little is said

about dealing with stormwater problems

(F.

199-201),

The interim

program is inadequate.

The Board

takes official notice of

the issuance in October,

1971 of

the

“Process Design Manual for Upgrading Existing Waste-

water Treatment Plants”

by

the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency.

The

Board expects

that the District in

its further study

of

ways

to

upgrade

the

Streamwood

plant will consult this manual

and explore

and

comment

on

the

possible

applicability

of

at

least

the following methods for improvement of the effluent:

1.

Operation

of

the

lagoon in series with the Imhoff—trickling

filter plant.

2.

Replacement

of stone in ~he trickling filters with

plastic media.

3.

Addition

of chemicals

to

‘the Imhoff tank.

4.

Addition

of chemicals

to the final clarifiers.

5.

Installation of tube settlers

in the Imhoff tank.

6.

Installation of tube settlers

in the

final clarifiers.

In summary, we must deny the variance.

We cannot approve

a orogram for complying with

the standards, since there is

no program.

We cannot approve the interim proposal,

since

it

is inadequate.

We cannot give the District

a shield against

possible money penalties for failing to comply with

the regulations,

or for allowing the present overload

‘to come about,

for it has

not proved any satisfactory excuse.

Cf.

Flintkote Co.

v.

EPA,

* 71-68, November

11,

1971.

We cannot give permission for

the addition of still more wastes,

for

they cannot adequately

be treated.

With respect to

the question of overload,

this

is

still another case of growth without concern

for

the provision

3—60

---

of essential services.

With respect to the question of

tertiary

treatment,

it is another case where

the often illusory hope

that someone else will pay the bill has delayed what

is necessary

to avoid pollution.

On both counts the environment

is the

loser.

Denial of the variance obviously does

not require

the plant

to close;

that would he

to make the problem far worse.

It leaves

the District in the same position

it put itself

in when it missed

the deadlines

of SWB-l4:

It

is

subject to whatever sanctions

might be found appropriate

in an enforcement proceeding,

and

it

is free to submit

a further petition correcting the present

deficiencies.

If

such

a petition contemplates

a

joint project.

other parties to the project should be made additional

parties

Meantime the District would be well advised

to get started with

dispatch upon adequate interim measures to alleviate the present

intolerable situation and upon the construction of whatever it

decides

is

the appropriate means

of

achieving compliance with

the

effluent standards of

SWB—l4.

The petition for variance is denied.

This opinion constitutes

the Board’s findings

of fact,

conclusions

of

law,

and order.

I,

Christan Moffett, Acting Clerk of the Pollution Control Board,

certify that

the Board adopted the above Opinion this______

day of

‘‘

‘‘

‘

,

1971.