ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October 22, 1981
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
)
AGENCY,
Complainant,
)
V4
)
PCB 79—207
)
VILLAGE
OF
ROMEOVI~LE, a
)
municipal
corporation,
)
)
Respondent.
MR. WILLIAM E. BLAXNEY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
THE
COMPLAINANT.
MR.
THEODORE
J.
JARZ,
McKEOWN,
FITZGERALD,
ZOLLNER,
BUCK
SANGMEISTER
&
HUTCHISON,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
THE
RESPONDENT.
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
D.
Anderson):
This matter comes before the Board upon a complaint filed
October 2,
1979 by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) naming as respondent the Village of Romeoville (Romeo-
yule).
The complaint alleges violations of Sections 12(a)
and
12(f)
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
and
Rules 501 and 901 of Chapter 3:
Water Pollution in connection
with operation of a municipal wastewater treatment plant in
Will County.
Romeoville filed an answer on October 24, 1979.
Public hearings were held in Romeoville on April 20 and June 12,
1981.
Members of the public attended.
Romeoville operates its municipal wastewater treatment
plant No.
1 on Bull Run Drive, Romeoville.
Pursuant to NPDES
permit, the plant discharges via outfall 001 to an unnamed ditch
tributary to the Des Plaines River.
The allegations
of the
complaint involve reporting irregularities and violations of
NPDES effluent limitations for 5-day biochemical oxygen demand
and
total
suspended
solids
(BOD
and TSS).
The
plant serves about 9,500 people
(R.94).
It has
a
design average capacity of
2 MGD (million gallons per day)
and
a design maximum of 5 MGD (R.96,
107).
The treatment plant includes four package plants operated
in parallel.
Influent sewage is split into four streams
(R.13).
43—499
—2—
The outputs from the package plants are combined and passed
through a common sand filter.
The output is chlorinated prior
to discharge
(R-13,
32,
44).
The package plants
are described as follows:
Input is to
an aeration unit, then to the central clarifier
(R-13,
42).
Clarified water passes over a weir to the sand filter described
above
(R-45).
Solids proceed to a reaeration unit and a diges-
ter
(R-l3,
42,
46),
Liquids are returned to the aeration unit
(R-4l,
46).
Solids go to the sludge drying beds
(R—33,
46).
Two recycle operations are described in the transcript.
The sand filter is periodically backwashed
(R-23).
Solids are
washed from the contact chlorinator
(R—l3,
23,
35,
45).
These
are pumped back to the head of the plant.
There are
8 sludge drying beds
(R-33).
Solids are pumped
to them from the digester
(R-46).
Bed area is inadequate for
the plant, although it is designed in accordance with Agency
criteria which call for 2 square feet per person served.
Sludge
does not have time to dry during a wet summer, such as
1981;
there is
a carry-over into the winter months when conditions
are not favorable for drying
(R-35,
77).
The Agency is consid-
ering modifying its criteria to
3 square feet per capita (R—80).
The plant has several operational problems which tend to
increase BOD and TSS
levels.
These include hydraulic over-
loading,
inadequate
sludge
handling
capacity
and
freezing
of
equipment during winter.
Normal input is 1,0 to 1.2 NGD, well under the 2.0 MGD
design average
(R-39,
61,
96, 107).
During rainfall this
increases to 1.7 to 3.0 MGD, in excess of design average, but
less than the design maximum of 5.0 MGD.
The source of excess flows is thought to be infiltration
and inflow.
The former is from cracks and joints in the sewers
(R—90,
98,
103, 108).
The system also has inflow from sump
pumps and downspouts
(R—96,
126),
The excess flow tends to wash solids from the aeration
chamber to the sand filter
(R—32,
47, 64,
106, 108).
This
excess flow reduces the contact time of the sewage with micro-
organisms in the aeration chamber and reduces the settling time.
The solids which wash out tend to require an increase in the
frequency of backflushing the sand filter and of cleaning the
chlorination unit.
Because the backflush must be sent back
through the
,
capacity is further strained
(R-32,
46).
43—500
—3—
These backwashed wastes also tend to make the biological proc-
ess anaerobic, decreasing treatment efficiency
(R—37,
46).
This problem is compounded by the inadequate sludge hand-
ling capacity of the plant.
Sludge is not removed from the
biological units often enough because there is no place to
put it
(R—62,
77,
106).
In the past the plant has had malfunctions because of
equipment freezing.
These have been corrected.
In addition
there is
a problem from frozen sludge drying beds in the win-
ter (R-23,
34, 62, 66).
The composite sampler pipe also tends
to collect condensate which freezes in the winter
(R-66).
The following is
a summary of the allegations of the
complaint:
Count
Section/Rule
Summary
I
§12(a)
and
(f)
Violation of NPDES permit
Rule 901
limitations for 5-day bio-
chemical
oxygen
demand
(BOD)
ii
~l.2(a)and
(f)
Violation
of
NPDES
permit
Rule 901
limitations for total suspended
solids
(TSS)
III
§12(f)
Failure to monitor and report
Rules 501 and 901
ammonia nitrogen as required
by NPDES permit
On October 27, 1977 the Agency issued to Romeoville
NPDES Permit No. 1L0030805.
Effluent limitations for BOD and
TSS appear to be based on Rule 404(c), although violation of
this rule is not alleged.
Effluent limitations include the
following:
30 day Averag~
7 day Average
BOD
10 mg/i
15 mg/i
TSS
12 mg/i
18 mg/l
Ammonia
(as N)
(Reference to Rule 203)
The standards for BOD and TSS will, be referred to as
p10/12”.
The permit also required
5 composite samples per week
for
BOD,
TSS
and
ammonia.
43—50 1
—4—
The NPDES permit expired September 30,
1979.
The Agency
has indicated that the permit is non-issuable “due to the fact
that the facility has not demonstrated it can consistently
meet the terms and conditions of its previous permit.”
(R-lll)
The Agency appears to be paraphrasing old Rules 902(i) (1) (i)
and 902(i) (1) (iii).
These have been repealed (R79—13, May 15,
1980,
38 PCB 341; July 24, 1980;
3 Ill.
Reg. No.
34,
p.
159,
August 22, 1980).
The intention was to allow renewal permits
to be issued to facilities even if they were out of compliance,
reasoning that it would be preferable to issue new permits
reflecting changes in the facility and regulations than to
attempt to enforce dated, expired permits
(38 PCB 342).
The
Agency supported this change
in its comments filed February 25,
1980.
The Agency regards the expired permit as continuing in
effect because a timely application was made for renewal
(R—lll).
Romeoville has expressed no opposition to this interpretation.
The Agency introduced 20 discharge monitoring reports
(DMR’s) (Ex.
2).
There is
a complete set from June, 1978 through
June,
1979.
Seven reports
are in evidence from the 19 month
period from July,
1979 through January,
1981.
BOlD levels were
omitted from one report.
In the following summary are given the average of monthly
averages and the highest reported maximum for three periods:
BOD
(mg/i)
TSS
(mg/l)
Ave.
Max.
Ave.
Max.
June
‘78—Dec.
‘78
7.2
20.7
17.7
129.0
Jan.
‘79—June
‘79
20.6
52.9
18.8
259.9
July ‘79—Jan.
‘81
12.7
25.1
18.0
71.4
Romeoville altered its testing methods
in July,
1979.
It
adjusted the method of determining BOD and increased the sample
size.
The difficulty with the BOD analysis was believed to
have
resulted
in
apparent
elevated
BOD
levels.
The
increased
sample
size
has
reduced
the
data
scatter
(R—49,
55).
The data during the last period in the table probably
represent
a
selected
sample
skewed
toward
non-compliance.
If one assumes that the missing dozen reports showed no viola-
tions, the actual averages would be less than the values given,
while the maxima would be unchanged.
This would indicate
43—502
—5—
greatly
improved
performance
over
the
preceding
periods.
However, violations of the 30 day average 10/12 permit condi-
tions
continued to some extent.
The Board finds that Romeoville violated the
30 day average,
10 mg/i BOlD NPDES permit effluent limitation during the follow-
ing months:
December,
1978; January, 1979 through June, 1979;
and March through May, and July,
1980.
The
Board
finds
Romeo-
yule violated the
12 mg/i TSS standard during the following
months:
June, July, September, October and November, 1978;
January and February, 1979;
and February through May, 1980.
The
Board therefore finds that Romeoville violated §~l2(a)and 12(f)
of the Act and Rule 901 of Chapter 3, substantially as alleged
in the complaint.
Count III alleges failure to sample and report levels of
ammonia.
Romeoville admits this violation,
After the permit
was reissued in 1977 it continued to use photocopies of report
forms which listed parameters to be tested under the old permit.
The operator did not notice that ammonia sampling had been
added to the permit.
Romeoville failed to report ammonia from
1977 to January, 1979.
After notification by the Agency it
began reporting ammonia levels
(R-15,
25,
58,
70; Ex.
2).
The
Board finds that Romeoville failed to monitor and report
ammonia
levels as required by NPDES permit during the noted period and
that it thereby violated §12(f)
of the Act and Rules 501 and
901 of Chapter
3.
Correction of Romeoville’s problems involves reduction of
hydraulic load and an increase in solids handling capacity.
Reduction in hydraulic load involves completion of an infiltra-
tion and inflow study, followed by corrective measures such as
repair of leaks and disconnection of downspouts and sump pumps
(R-96, 126, 146).
A facilities plan study was initiated in 1976
(R-90).
It was expected
to
be
submitted
to the Agency around
May
15,
1981 (R-99).
There
is no indication in the transcript
as to whether this was
done.
The
Board
will require Romeoville
to initiate
a program to disconnect sources of inflow.
An alternative is construction of a holding basin to
receive excess
storm flows.
A permit application was made
several years
ago.
The Agency neither granted nor denied the
application, but “tabled~’it
(R—102).
Increases in sludge handling capacity could be effected by
increasing the number of drying beds, by covering the beds, or
by installation of a mechanical sludge drying unit
(R-77,
106).
In its brief Romeoville indicates it has begun hauling wet
sludge from the plant for disposal.
There may be inadequate
43—503
room for expansion of the beds
(R,
81).
Romeoville’s engineer
has recommended installation of
a belt press
(R.
82).
This
would cost about $310,000, hut could go higher if
a larger
building were constructed
CR.
84).
Respondent was before the Board in recent enforcement
action brought by a citizen concerning sewer overflows
(Can—
farelli
v.
Romeovilleç PcB 79—75,
35 PCI3 459, October 4,
1979.
The Board’s Ordc.
apparently resulted in replacement of a
sewer line.
Thi.~has restricted the amount of bond funding
available for further work
CR.
136,
139).
The belt press would cost about $32.63 per person in the
service
area.
There appear to he adequate measures whereby
bonds could be issued to cover this
(R.
134,
136,
141).
Romeo—
ville has indicated its reluctance to proceed with major
improvements without guidance from the Agency
(R.
128).
In
its brief it asks that the Board enter an order directing the
steps
to be taken in making necessary improvements
(p.
6,
8).
The Board will decline to grant Romeoville’s request.
In
the first place there are inadequate facts and parties before
the Board to make the regional wastewater planning decision
requested
(R. 127),
In the second place responsibility of
initially making a plan falls on Roineoville.
Any necessary
permit applications are to he filed with the Agency, whose
action is subject to review
by
the Board.
Section 39(a)
of the Act imposes
a duty on the Agency to
act on permit applications,
It is
:Lncurnbent on applicants to
insist on either the permit or reasons for denial,
Denial may
be appealed to the Board.
There is no evidence in the record of any great injury or
interference with the health, general welfare or physical
property
of
the
people, apart from the excess of BOD and TSS
discharged.
The treatment plant is of great social and economic
value, but this value is reduced by careless operation.
The
plant seems to be suitable to the area in which it
is
located.
It is technically practical and economically reasonable to
eliminate the discharges in excess oi the standards.
Having reviewed the extent of the violations and the miti-
gating factors, the Board finds that a monetary penalty of $500
is necessary to aid enforcement of the Act in view of the care-
less disregard of the reporting requirements and the failure to
pursue permit issuance for corrective measures to improve
sludge handling.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s
findings
of fact and conclusions
of law in this matter.
43—504
—7—
ORDER
1.
The Board finds that Respondent,
the Village of
Romeoville,
has violated Sections 12(a)
and 12(f)
of the Act
and Rules 501 and 901 of
Chapter
3:
Water
Pollution.
2.
Within
60
days
of
the
date
of
this
Order,
the
Village
of
Romeoville
shall
file
with
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency such permit applications as may be necessary
to upgrade the sludge handling capacity of its Plant No.
1.
3.
Within 90 days of the date of this Order, Respondent
shall
adopt
ordinances
prohibiting
connection
of
sump
pumps
and downspouts to its sewage system.
4.
Within 180 days of the date of this Order, the
Village
of
Romeoville
shall
adopt
and
implement an inspection
program likely to find sump pump and downspout connections.
5.
Respondent shall report to the Agency within 180 days
outlining its inspection plan,
and, within one year, the number
of downspouts, sump pumps and other illegal connections which
have been disconnected.
6.
Respondent shall cease and desist violating Section 12
of the Act and Rules 501 and 901
of
Chapter
3:
Water
Pollution.
7.
Within
35
days
of
the
date
of
this
Order,
Respondent,
the Village of Romeoville, shall, by certified check or money
order payable to the State of Illinois, pay a civil penalty
of
$500
which
is
to
be
sent
to:
State of Illinois
Fiscal
Services
Division
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
8.
Respondent’s Motion for Leave to File Brief late is
granted.
43—505
—8—
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
I, Christan
L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that t e above Opinion and
Order
were adopted on the
~j1~H’
day of
____________,
1981 by a
vote of
~O
Christan
L.
Moffe
Clerk
Illinois
Pollutio
bntrol
Board
43—506