ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 18,
1980
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 79—79
CITY OF MONMOUTH,
)
a municipal corporation,
)
Respondent.
MR. STEPHEN GROSSMARK, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON
BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT.
HOTTLE
& SPEARS, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(MR. BUFFORD W. RaTTLE,
JR.,, 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 April
6,
1979 Complaint
brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection agency
(“Agency”).
On November
10,
1979,
the Hearing Officer permitted amendment of
this Complaint.
Count
I and II of the Amended Complaint pertained
to the wastewater treatment facility owned and operated by the City
of Monmouth (“City”) which processes wastewater produced by the
Wilson Food Company’s packing plant.
Count III and Iv of the
Amended Complaint involved the wastewater treatment facility owned
and operated by the City which processes the City’s municipal
sewage.
On May
6,
1980,
the Complainant filed a Motion to Sever and
File the Severed Cases Instanter which requested that the Board
sever the original case into two separate cases.
The first case,
involving the packing plant wastewater treatment facility, would
consist of Counts
I and II of the Amended Complaint.
The second
case, involving the municipal wastewater treatment facility, would
consist of Counts III and IV of the Amended Complaint.
The Agency’s
motion to sever contained a statement to the effect that the City
did not object to the motion and joined in it.
On May
15,
1980, the Board granted the joint motion to sever.
The Board struck the Complaint in PCB 79—79 and substituted in its
place the Amended Complaint concerning the municipal wastewater
treatment facility
located in the City of Monmouth.
The Amended
Complaint relating to the packing plant wastewater treatment
—2—
facility was construed as an original Complaint and docketed as
PCB 80—107.
On June 18,
1980, the Agency filed a Motion to Amend
the Complaint and to File the Complaint Instanter and a Second
Amended Complaint which served to conform the pleadings to the
proof.
Count
I of the Second Amended Complaint alleged that the City
operated its municipal wastewater treatment facility in such a
manner as to discharge effluents which contained settleable solids,
floating debris, grease, and foam and sludge solids into Markham
Creek,
a navigable water of the State of Illinois, thereby
violating its NPDES Permit,
Rules 203,
403 and 602 of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Control Regulations
(“Chapter 3”) and Section 12
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(“Act”).
Count II of the Second Amended Complaint alleged that the
Respondent failed to provide the optimum and most efficient
operation and maintenance of its wastewater treatment facility by
failing to:
(1) monitor and report effluent concentrations for
specified parameters;
(2) use proportioned composites in its
sampling;
(3) sample the effluent at a represented point;
(4) report wastewater bypassed around the City’s facility; and
(5) provide sufficient operating personnel at the plant
in violation
of its NPDES Permit and Section 12 of the Act,
A hearing on the
proposed settlement was held on June 13,
1980.
Members of the general
public who were present at the hearing did not choose to comment or
offer testimony in this case,
The parties filed a Statement of
Stipulated Settlement on June 20,
1980.
The Respondent’s municipal wastewater treatment facility (the
“facility” or “plant”)
in Warren County, Illinois provides secondary
treatment to the City’s municipal sewage and discharges effluents
into an unnamed tributary of Markham Creek pursuant to NPDES Permit
No.
0021253,
(See:
Exhibit B).
This unnamed tributary to Markham
Creek carries only plant effluent under ordinary dry weather
conditions and receives runoff during wet weather.
The
flow from
Markham Creek ultimately reaches the Mississippi River via Cedar
Creek and Henderson Creek.
(Stip,
2),
The City’s sewage treatment
plant was placed on restricted status by the Agency on October 23,
1979.
The Respondent is presently participating in the Agency’s
wastewater treatment works construction grants program to upgrade
its facilities,
The parties have described pertinent parts of the plant’s
operation as follows:
“Sewage comes from the City by way of sewer pipes to the
plant.
Prior to entering
a bar screen, excess sewage flow is
bypassed at one of two bypasses located at two diversion
structures.
At the bar screen,
large pieces of debris, i.e.,
sticks, pieces of cloth, etc. are removed from the sewage, or
wastewater.
The sewage then flows to one of two sluice gates
which control the flow to the two grit removal chambers where
inorganic solids
such as sand and gravel are removed.
Located
after the grit removal chambers
is another bypass structure
which also routes excess flow around the plant.
Wastewater
then flows
to one of two primary clarifiers for the settling
of solids from the sewage.
These solids, or primary sludge,
are then pumped to an anaerobic digester where digestion of
the sludge takes place.
This sludge
is then placed in a
second digester for storage and
is then sent to drying beds
to dry.
It is later landfilled.
Wastewater from the primary clarifiers then flows to one
of two aeration basins.
A fourth bypass structure which also
routes excess flow around the plant is located between the
primary clarifiers and the aeration basins.
While
in the
aeration basins the wastewater is treated by
a conventional
activated sludge process.
The wastewater
is placed in an
activated sludge mixed liquor where micro—organisms consume
nutrients and pollutants in the sewage.
The wastewater from
the aeration basins then proceeds to the final clarifier where
settling of sludge takes place.
Secondary sludge, or the activated sludge,
from the final
clarifier
is either sent back to the aeration basins to be
used once again as activated sludge or is “wasted” back
through the system by sending it back to the primary
clarifiers and then to the digesters for digestion and
disposal.
Wastewater from the final clarifier is
flow metered
at a Kennison Nozzle and discharged to Markham Creek.
No
chlorination is provided.”
(Stip.
2—3).
The plant, which was designed in 1935 for an average flow
1.5 million gallons of wastewater per day
(“t4GD”), has had an
average daily flow of between 1.3 and 1.5 MGD.
The maximum flow
through the facility has seldom exceeded 2.0 MGD.
The parties have
stipulated that “flows in excess of 1.5 MGD have been allowed to
bypass raw sewage at the four bypass structures to the receiving
stream.”
(Stip.
4).
On a normal dry day, the raw sewage bypassed
has amounted to about 1.0 MGD, while the amount of sewage bypassed
is greater than 1.0 MGD during wet weather periods.
(Stip.
4).
Between July
9,
1973 and February 21,
1980,
the Agency has made
23 inspections of the Respondent’s facilities.
Agency employees
have observed the bypassing of raw sewage during 16 of the 23
inspections.
(Stip.
4).
Agency personnel conducted a series of
stream surveys of the plant’s receiving waters during the last
four months of 1979.
Water samples indicated that water quality
violations have occurred.
(See:
Exhibits C,
D and E; Stip.
4—5).
The parties have also stipulated that the City has:
(1)
violated the requirements of its NPDES Permit as
to sampling,
analysis and reporting of data;
(2) failed to monitor effluent
concentrations of heavy metals;
(3) failed to use flow proportioned
composites in its sampling;
and
(4) had insufficient staff at the
plant.
(Stip.
5-6).
Although the City has consistently indicated
in its discharge monitoring reports that it has met its NPDES Permit
—4—
effluent limits, the Agency contends that the City’s effluent
results pertaining to BOD5 and suspended solids have been
inaccurate.
(Stip..
5).
The City is currently attempting to reduce the bypassing of
raw sewage to the receiving stream until the plant can be upgraded
pursuant to the Agency’s wastewater treatment works construction
grants program (i.e.,
75
of the cost of upgrading the plant will
be paid for by the Federal Government),
(Stip.
6—7).
In its
attempt to reduce the bypass of raw sewage, the City has:
(1) constructed a storm sewer which leads
to the plant and
(2) attempted to take flows in excess of 1.5 MGD through the
facility.
(Stip.
7).
The City has agreed td:
(1) follow a specified completion
schedule for upgrading its facility;
(2) take various specified
steps to reduce the bypassing of raw sewage as much as possible;
(3)
increase its staff to provide additional monitoring of its
plant;
and
(4) follow the Agency’s recommendations for improving
its sampling, analysis,
and reporting procedures.
(See:
Exhibit
F;
Stip.
6—10).
The proposed settlement agreement provides that the City will
promptly:
(1) cease and desist from further violations of its
NPDES Permit, the Board’s Water Pollution Control Regulations, and
the Act;
(2)
adhere to its grant program completion schedule for
upgrading the plant;
(3) maintain an adequate operating staff;
(4)
closely monitor the operating conditions of the facility;
(5)
reduce bypassing at the plant by following the Agency’s
suggested equipment modifications;
(6)
take 24—hour flow
proportioned composite samples of the final effluent in accordance
with the requirements of its NPDES Permit;
(7) take hand composite
samples of raw sewage influent three times during each eight—hour
shift;
(8) monitor and record process control of the plant
(in
accordance with Exhibit F);
(9) monitor, analyse and report the
effluent concentrations of heavy metals;
(10) obtain the services
of a professional analytical
laboratory to provide specified
four-week training to all plant personnel; and
(11) pay a stipulated
penalty of $2,500.00
.
(Stip.
11—13).
In evaluating this enforcement action and proposed settlement,
the Board has taken into consideration all the facts and circum-
stances in light of the specific criteria delineated in Section 33(c)
of the Act.
The Board finds the stipulated agreement acceptable
under Procedural Rule 331 and Section 33(c) of the Act.
The Board
finds that the Respondent, the City of Monmouth, has violated
Rules 203,
403,
602, and 901 of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Control
Regulations and Section 12 of the Act,
The Respondent is ordered
to cease and desist from all further violations.
The City is
ordered to follow the compliance plan and schedule set forth in the
Statement of Stipulated Settlement..
The stipulated penalty of
$2,500.00 is assessed against the City of Monmouth,
—5
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 Monmouth, has violated
Rules 203,
403,
602, and 901 of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Control
Regulations and Section 12 of the Illinois Environmental Protection
Act.
2.
The Respondent shall cease and desist from further
violations.
3.
Within 30 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 $2,500.00 which is to be
sent to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois
62706
4.
The Respondent shall comply with all the terms and
conditions of the Statement of Stipulated Settlement filed on
June 20,
1980, which is incorporated by reference as if fully set
forth herein.
Chairman Dumelle concurs.
I,
Christan
L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, here3y certify that the above Opinion and Order were adopted
on the
/K
‘
day of
______________,
1980 by a vote of
_________
Illinois Polluti
