ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November 20,
1980
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 78—215
CITY OF KNOXVILLE,
an Illinois
municipal corporation,
)
Respondent.
MR. THOMAS
R. CHIOLA, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF THE COMPLAINANT.
BARASH AND STOERZBACH, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(MR. RONALD HENSON, OF
COUNSEL), APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by N.E.Werner):
This matter comes before the Board on the August
8,
1978
Complaint brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”).
On August 27,
1979, the Agency filed its Motion to Set
Hearing Date and Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint.
On September
6,
1979, the Board entered an Order which granted the
Agency’s motion.
Count
I of the First Amended Complaint alleged that the
Respondent’s municipal sewage treatment facility
(the “plant” or
“facility”) in Knox County,
Illinois discharged effluents
which
exceeded its NPDES Permit limitations on 5—day biochemical oxygen
demand
(“B0D511),
suspended solids, and chlorine residual in violation
of its NPDES Permit,
Rule
901 of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Control
Regulations
(“Chapter 3”), and Sections 12(a) and 12(f)
of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(“Act”).
Count II alleged that,
from May 31,
1979 until August
27,
1979,
the City of Knoxville
(the
“City”)
failed to:
(1) operate its
facility as efficiently as possible
(to minimize discharges
of
excessive pollutants)
and
(2) provide optimum operation and mainte-
nance of the plant
(to produce
as high quality of effluent as
reasonably possible)
in violation of its NPDES
Permit,
Rule
901,
and Sections 12(a)
and 12(f)
of the Act.
—2—
Count III alleged that,
from October
24,
1977 until August 27,
1979, the City
failed to monitor its total treated and storm water
effluent discharge prior to discharge to the receiving stream and
failed to collect flow proportioned composite samples to determine
effluent values in violation of its NPDES Permit, Rule 901, and
Sections 12(a) and 12(f) of the Act.
Count IV alleged that,
from April
30,
1978 until August
27,
1979,
the City had experienced non—complying discharges and failed
to notify the Agency within
5 days after it became aware of its
non—compliance with the effluent standards in violation of its
NPDES Permit,
Rule 901, and Sections 12(a) and 12(f)
of the Act.
Count
V
alleged that the City periodically discharged effluent
from its facility which contained excessive amounts of BOD5 in
violation of Rule 404(c) of Chapter
3 and Section 12(a) of the Act.
Count VI
alleged that the Respondent periodically discharged
effluent from its plant which contained excessive amounts of
suspended solids in violation of Rule 404(c) of Chapter
3 and
Section 12(a)
of the Act.
Count VII alleged that,
from October
24, 1977 until August
27,
1979,
the City failed to operate its sewage treatment plant
so as
to minimize violations of applicable standards in violation of
Rule
601(a) of Chapter
3 and Section 12(a) of the Act.
Count VIII alleged that,
from March 30,
1978 until August 27,
1979, the Respondent discharged effluent from its facility which
caused the ammonia nitrogen level
in the receiving stream to exceed
1.5 mg/l in violation of Rule 203(f)
of Chapter
3 and Section 12(a)
of the Act.
Count
IX alleged that,
from March
30,
1978 until August 27,
1979,
the City allowed discharges from its plant which displayed
excessive color, odor and turbidity and which caused the receiving
stream to have unnatural color and turbidity downstream from the
discharge in violation of Rules
203(a)
and 403 of Chapter
3 and
Section 12(a)
of the Act.
On October
3,
1979, the City filed a Motion to Dismiss the
First Amended Complaint.
On October
5,
1979, the Agency filed its
Response to the Motion to Dismiss.
On October 18,
1979, the Board
entered an Order denying the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss.
On
October 31,
1979,
the City filed a Motion to Reconsider its Motion
—3—
to Dismiss and a Request for Oral Argument on the Motion to Dismiss.
On November
1,
1979,
the Agency filed
a Response to the Motion to
Reconsider the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss.
On November 15,
1979,
the Board entered an Order which denied the City’s Motion for
Reconsideration and Request for Oral Argument.
A hearing was held
on July 30,
1980.
The parties filed a Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement on July
31,
1980.
The Respondent owns
arid
operates a sewage treatment facility
in Knox County,
Illinois which discharges wastewater into Flaw Creek,
an Illinois water, pursuant to
NPDES
Permit
No.
IL
0022209.
(See:
Exh.
A).
Discharge monitoring reports and water sampling analysis
results indicate that effluent discharges from the City’s sewage
treatment facilities caused various violations of the numerical
standards delineated in its NPDES Permit.
(See:
Exh.
B—M).
On March
30,
1978, an Agency inspector conducted a water
quality survey at the location of the plant’s discharge into Haw
Creek.
(See:
Exh.
N).
This
water
quality
survey
indicated
that
the effluent discharge from the plant increased the level
of ammonia
nitrogen from 0.6 mg/l
(upstream of the discharge)
to 4.6 mg/i
(75 feet downstream of the discharge).
(Stip.
8).
Additionally,
the survey showed
“that there was a continuing effect from the
discI~argeeven after confluence with another tributary of Flaw Creek.”
(Stip.
8).
On May
31,
1979,
during an Agency inspection of the City’s
facilities,
numerous deficiencies in the operation of the plant
were observed.
(See:
Exh.
0).
The Agency inspector observed that
“flow monitoring devices were not in service on this date” and
treatment facilities were not properly maintained or fully utilized.
The
resultant
effluent
discharge
to
Flaw
Creek
was
gray—brown,
turbid,
and
odorous.
(Stip.
9).
Subsequently, Agency inspections
on June
5,
1979 and July
25,
1979 indicated that there were continuing
deficiencies in the operation and maintenance of the City’s
facilities.
(See:
Exh.
P
& Q).
The Agency inspector, Mr.
James
Kammueller,
“noted that by—pass portions of the plant were in
operation which were not needed at the time and which contributed
to
a degraded effluent.”
(Stip.
9; Exh.
0).
The proposed settlement agreement includes a detailed compliance
program and provides for the adoption of an Agency—approved time
schedule.
The Agency has agreed to modify the City’s NPDES Permit
to allow:
(1) discharge of stormwater excess flows after settling
and chlorination, and
(2)
time composited sampling.
(Stip.
10—11).
The City has agreed to:
(1) immediately operate its facility
“so that the maximum volume of flow”
(i.e.,
650,000 gallons per day)
—4—
“receives full treatment and only those flows in excess of plant
capacity are bypassed to the excess flow treatment facilities”,
and
“if the total
daily flow does not exceed 650,000 gpd then the plant
will provide full treatment for that daily flow”;
(2)
“to clean
and dewater the stormwater excess flow tanks immediately after each
use”;
(3)
“to immediately monitor the excess flow discharges from
the plant for” BOD5 total suspended solids, settleable solids,
ammonia nitrogen as N and chlorine residual
“on an 8—hour composite
sampling basis when discharging”;
(4)
“to monitor all flows
to the
plant” by utilizing continuous 24—hour flow measuring equipment;
and
(5) to provide at least one full—time properly certified
operator at the plant and such other additional personnel as
necessary to assist with operations,
conduct laboratory duties,
and provide routine maintenance of the facilities.
(Stip.
11—12).
Additionally, the City has also agreed to:
(1) perform
specified operational process control tests and maintain the
necessary reports thereon;
(2) provide all necessary laboratory
equipment (including a centrifuge);
(3) promptly rehabilitate the
tertiary filters and protect the chlorine contact tanks from
corrosion;
(4) provide the Agency with its recommendation for the
installation, maintenance, protection, rehabilitation and utilization
of various specified controls and equipment;
(5)
immediately under-
take
a program of specified remedial measures to provide optimum
operation and maintenance of the facilities;
(6)
adopt an Agency—
approved comprehensive sludge management program;
(7) implement
a
program to locate sewer system overflows and wildcat sewers and to
take all necessary actions
to eliminate these discharges;
(8) identify and eliminate sources of infiltration and inflow;
(9) provide all necessary discharge monitoring reports;
(10)~have
its plant operator and laboratory personnel attend and successfully
complete a 5—day activated sludge process control and troubleshoot-
ing course;
(11) “maintain its position on the grants priority list”
by meeting the Agency schedule and criteria; and
(12) pay a
stipulated penalty of $500.00
.
(Stip.
12—16).
At the hearing, the Assistant Attorney General indicated that
“progress has been made toward cleaning up some of the problems at
the plant.”
(R.
4-5).
A study by the City’s engineer has indicated
that the discharges from the sewage treatment plant are currently
within the requirements of the City’s NPDES Permit.
(R.
5).
Many
portions of the current improvement program are designed to help
maintain the progress which has already been achieved.
(R.
5).
Additionally,
the City’s attorney indicated that the photographs
which are included in the exhibits, while accurately depicting the
conditions that previously existed at the plant,
“do not adequately,
or accurately, portray the situation or the conditions that exist
at the plant at this time.”
(R.
6).
The Assistant Attorney General
also acknowledged “that these photos would not accurately reflect
the conditions as they exist today at the plant.”
(R.
7).
In evaluating this enforcement action and proposed settlement,
the Board has taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances
—5—
in light of the specific criteria delineated in Section 33(c) of
the Act.
The Board finds the settlement agreement acceptable under
Procedural Rule 331 and Section 33(c) of the
Act.
The Board
finds
that the Respondent, the City of Knoxville,
has violated Rules
203(a),
203(f),
403, 404(c),
601(a) and 901 of Chapter
3:
Water
Pollution Control Regulations and Sections 12(a)
and 12(f)
of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
The stipulated penalty of
$500.00 is hereby assessed against the Respondent.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
It
is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board that:
1.
The Respondent,
the City of Knoxville, has violated Rules
203(a),
203(f),
403,
404(c),
601(a)
and 901 of Chapter
3:
Water
Pollution Control Regulations and Sections 12(a)
and 12(f)
of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
2.
Within
45 days of the date of this Order, the Respondent
shall,
by certified check or money order payable to the State of
Illinois, pay the stipulated penalty of $500.00 which is to be
sent to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
3.
The Respondent shall comply with all the terms and
conditions of the Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement filed
July
31,
1980, which is incorporated by reference as
if fully set
forth herein.
I, Christan L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order wer~adopted
on the
~&‘
day of ~
,
1980 by a vote of
~
Christan L. Mof
~
Clerk
Illinois Polluti&i Control Board
