ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 14, 1981
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB
78—136
VILLAGE
OF
ROCKDALE,
)
Respondent.
MR. THOMAS CHIOLA, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF THE COMPLAINANT.
MESSRS.
JAMES
E.
B2~BCOCK
AND
JOHN
A.
BELOM, ROBSON,
MASTERS,
RYAN,
BRUMMUND
&
BELOM,
APPEARED
ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by D.
Satchell):
This matter comes before the Board upon a complaint and three
amended complaints
filed May 10 and November 21, 1978 and March 14
and July
3,
1979 by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
naming as respondent the Village of Rockdale
(Rockdale).
The third amended complaint alleges violation of Sections
12(a)
12(b)
and 12(f)
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
and Rules 404(c),
408(a), 501(a), 601(a)
and 901 of Chapter 3:
Water Pollution in connection with discharges from a municipal
wastewater treatment plant.
Public hearings were held at Joliet
on May 22, 1979 and on February
13 and August 21, 1980.
At the
third
hearing
the parties presented a stipulation and proposal for
settlement.
Members
of
the
public
attended
the first and third
hearj~5
and
at
the third hearing showed concern about pollution of
their shallow wells
in Channahon by Rockdale’s discharges into the
Illinois and Michigan Canal.
The third amended complaint names
as parties respondent “The
Village
of
Rockdale,
its
President
and
Members
of
its
Board
of
Trustees
and
the
authorized
agents
at
the municipal sewage treat-
ment facility, each
and
all
in
their
official
capacities.”
This
is insufficient to designate the individuals by name as respondents
even in their official capacities
Procedural
Rule 303(a).
The
Board finds that the only respondent is Rockdale and there is no
necessity of either dismissing or finding violations against the
unnamed respondents.
Rockdale operates
a municipal wastewater treatment plant in
Will County.
It discharges to the Illinois and Michigan Canal
south of Joliet.
Discharge
is pursuant to NPDES permit 1L0030775
issued June 30,
1977.
41—385
—2—
The following
table
summarizes the allegations of the third
amended complaint.
References are given to sections of the Act
and rules found in Chapter
3.
Unless otherwise indicated,
the
allegations specify several instances during the period from
November 1977 through October 1978.
Rockdale objected to the
allegation of violations occurring after the original complaint
was filed.
This will be discussed below.
Section
Count
Rule
SUrflrnary
I
12(a),
(b)
Violation of NPDES effluent standards for
and
(f)
residual chlorine,
five day biochemical oxygen
Rule 901
demand
(BOD), total suspended solids
(TSS),
cyanide, phenols and fecal coliforra
II
12 (a),
(b)
Violation of NPDES monitoring and reporting
and
(f)
conditions for fecal coliform, chlorine, BOD,
Rule 901
TSS, pH, chromium, phenols
III
12(a)
Violation of cyanide effluent standard
Rule 408(a)
IV
12(a)
Violation of phenol effluent standard in
Rule 408(a) November 1977 and February 1978
V
12(a)
Violation of effluent standard of 10 mg/i BOD
Rule 404(c)
VI
12(a)
Violation of effluent standard of 12 mg/i TSS
Rule 404(c)
VII
12(a),
(b)
Failure to notify Agency of non-compliance
and
(f)
with NPDES permit conditions as required by
Rule 901
permit
VIII
12(a)
Failure to submit operating reports
Rule 501(a)
IX
12(a)
Bypassing raw sewage during October 1978
Rule 601(a)
x
12(a)
Failure to submit discharge monitoring reports
Rule 901
(DMR’s)
as required by NPDES permit for July,
September, November and December
XI
12(a)
Failure to submit quarterly DMR’s as in Count X
Rule 501(a)
XII
12(a)
Lagoon level lowered by discharging partially
Rule 601(a)
treated sewage into waters of the state during
May, 1979
41—386
The following is a summary of the permit conditions and the
applicable effluent standar&~from Part IV of Chapter
3:
mg/i
(except fecal coliform)
Permit Conditions1
Chapter
3
Count
30
day
7 day
BOD
10
15
10
I,V
TSS
12
18
12
I, VI
Residual Chlorine
Minimum
0.2
I
Maximum
0.75
I
Fecal Coliform
400/100 ml
400/100 ml
I
(daily max.)
2
Cyanide
0.025
0.10
I,
III
Phenols
0.3
0.3
I, IV
1Exhihit A
2Rule
408(a) has been amended to increase the cyanide standard from
0.025 to 0.10 ing/l
(R 74—15,—16;
31 PCB 404, September 7, 1978;
2
Ill. Reg. No.
44, Page 10, November
3, 1978).
Exhibits B through K contain discharge monitoring reports
(DNR’s)
required by NPDES permits.
The average of twelve average BOD re-
ports was 214 mg/i, grossly in excess of the
10 mg/i condition and
standard.
The average of 9 average TSS reports was 104 mg/i, gross-
ly in excess of 12 mg/i.
o~six reports,
two are below the 0.2 mg/i minimum residual
chlorine limitation.
Of seven reports,
one is
in excess of the
0.75 mg/l maximum residual chlorine limitation.
There are no
reported levels for fecal coliform in Exhibits B through K.
Of four cyanide reports,
all are in excess of the 0.025 mg/l
permit
limitation, exhibiting an average of 0.09 mg/i.
Of two
phenol reports,
one is
in excess of the standard.
On October 25,
1978 the Agency inspected the plant
in response
to numerous citizen complaints.
Sewage was being given only primary
treatment.
Secondary treatment including the trickling filter and
treatment lagoon were not in use
(Stip.
10).
41—387
—4—
On May 24, 1979 an inspection disclosed operational and main-
tenance problems.
The plant operator indicated that a line had been
blocked causing
a
back-up into the facility.
To gain access to the
blockage the operator lowered the lagoon level from between eight
inches to two feet.
This was accomplished by discharging partially
treated sewage to the Canal.
Rockdale claims this resulted in a
5
reduction in total storage volume and reduced the detention time to
46 from 48 hours.
Rockdale asserts that it used all reasonable
efforts to alleviate the problem
(Stip.
11),
Rockdale has
at its own expense employed Beling Engineering
Consultants to prepare plans for upgrading the plant to meet fed-
eral effluent limitations for secondary treatment
(Stip.
12).
These have been submitted to the Agency for review
(Exhibits L and
N through V).
The Agency is unable to issue a construction permit
since the upgraded facility would not meet Rule 404 effluent limita-
tions
(Stip.
12).
The Agency questions whether the current proposal
would even meet federal secondary treatment levels
(Stip.
13).
The
parties have asked the Board to order the Agency to issue this
permit in this action.
Rockdale is within the Joliet West Side service region.
Future
plans
call for abandonment of the existing Rockdale facility upon
regionaiization.
Any improvements to the existing facility would
be only an interim measure
(Stip.
12).
Rockdale objects to the allegations enumerated in paragraphs
7a and 7b of the stipulation
(Stip.
4,
14).
These allegations in-
clude some, but not all of the allegations of the third amended
complaint and relate to dates both before and after the filing of
the original complaint.
The basis of the objection is not clearly
set forth in the stipulation, but there is an inference that the
Board lacks jurisdiction.
In an Order entered July 12,
1979 the
Board authorized the filing of the third amended complaint.
Rock-
dale did not oppose the motion for leave
to file or subsequently
move to dismiss or strike.
Rockdale nowhere specifies the grounds for its jurisdictional
objections.
If the objection relates to personal jurisdiction, it
was waived by voluntary appearance.
The violations alleged in
paragraphs 7a and 7b of the stipulation are certainly within the
Board’s subject matter jurisdiction.
There is no doubt about juris-
diction concerning violations after the filing of the original com-
plaint.
There is no law which exempts respondents from application
of the Act
and
Board rules during the pendency of litigation.
Whether new violations should be added to a pending action or
brought by way of
a second complaint depends largely on
how
far
the first action has proceeded.
Objections should have been raised
at the time and are now deemed waived.
The Board finds that it has
jurisdiction to find violations based on the allegations
of para-
graphs 7a and 7b and declines to exercise its option of accepting
only part of the stipulation.
41—388
—5—
The
stipulation
provides
that
the
allegations
of
para-
graphs
7a and 7b are severable and that any order of the Board
finding
violations
based
on
these
allegations
may
be attacked
on this basis in any court of competent jurisdication.
Such
an Order would otherwise remain in full force and effect and
be enforceable even if the finding of violations based on these
paragraphs were stricken.
Rockdale
has
admitted
all
of
the
allegations
except
those
alleged in
Count
XII
of
the
complaint,
including
facts
suffi-
cient to find violations relating to paragraphs 7a and 7b,
although it retains the right to make jurisdictional objections
as noted above.
Count XII relates to the May 24, 1979 incident
in which the lagoon was lowered.
The Agency has asked that
Count XII be dismissed without prejudice.
This request will be
granted.
Based
on
the
admission and exhibits, the Board finds
Rockdale in violation of Sections l2(a),~l2(b)
and
12(f)
of the
Act and Rules
404(c),
408(a), 501(a), 601(a)
and 901 of Chapter
3, substantially as alleged in the Counts
I through XI of the
third amended complaint.
Paragraph
36
of
the
agreement
contemplates
compliance
with interim standards until regionalization is accomplished
or grant money received.
This would potentially be approval
of noncompliance for an indefinite period of time, contrary to
the intent of Section 36(b)
of the Act which limits variances
to five years and requires satisfactory progress toward com-
pliance.
The
Board
has
therefore
limited
the
interim
standards
to five years.
Rockdale will have to request a variance
if
regionalization
or
grant
funding
has
not
occurred.
The
parties
have
agreed
to
a
$2000
civil
penalty.
The
Agency contends that a $10,000 penalty was warranted in view
of the history and severity of the violations, but agrees to
an
$8000 reduction in mitigation since Rockdale is
a small munici-
pality and now has
a compliance program, part of which is set
out in the stipulation.
The Board finds the penalty is neces-
sary to aid enforcement of the Act and finds the stipulation
acceptable pursuant to Procedural Rule 331.
The Board has
considered the factors enumerated in Section 33(c)
of the Act
in reaching this decision.
4
1—389
—6—
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
1.
Respondent, the Village of Rockdale, is
in violation of
Sections 12(a),
12(b)
and 12(f)
of the Act and Rules
404(c),
408(a)
,
501(a),
601(a)
and 901 of Chapter 3:
Water Pollution.
2.
Respondent
shall
cease
and
desist
from further violations
of
Section
12
of
the
Act
and
Chapter
3
of
the
Board~s regulations.
3.
Respondent shall undertake
a program of remedial measures
based upon its Application for Permit
(a copy of which is attached
to the stipulation
as Exhibit L)
and Alternative
C of the Report
by Beling Consultants
(a copy of which is attached as Exhibit N)
and the revisions and clarifications of its plans and specifica-
tions
(Exhibits N through V).
Respondent shall submit informa-
tion during its upgrading program which indicates the hydraulic
profile of the plant and the capacity of the existing plant piping
to handle a maximum flow of 1.5 million gallons per day
(MGD).
Respondent shall apply for a permit from the Agency for
any
modifi-
cation of existing plant piping needed to accept a maximum flow
of 1.5 MGD.
4.
Respondent shall monitor the flow separately for each of
the proposed discharge locations.
The existing flow meter shall
be placed in operation within thirty days of the date of this
Order.
5.
Respondent shall complete within fifteen months of the
date of this Order the improvements outlined in the Application
for Permit and the Beling Report.
During
this
period of upgrading
Respondent shall not discharge the following contaminants
in excess
of the indicated levels:
mg/i except fecal coliform
Contaminant
30 day average
7 day maximum
13OD5
110
200
Total Suspended Solids
50
125
Fecal Coliform
400/100 ml
Chromium (hexavalent)
1.0
Cyanide
0.5
Phenols
1.0
Zinc
2.5
L~1—390
—7—
6.
Upon completion of upgrading Respondent shall not discharge
from the main process
stream
the following contaminants in excess
of the indicated 1eveIs~:
Contaminants
30 day average
Daily
Maximum
BOD
30
mg/i
Suspended
Solids
30
mg/l
Fecal Coliform
400/100
Chromium
(total hexavalent)
0.3 mg/l
Cyanide
0.10 mg/i
Phenols
0.3 mg/l
Zinc
1.0 mg/i
7.
Upon completion of upgrading as required by this agreement,
Respondent may discharge from the stormwater outfall after settling
and chlorination h.as occurred.
8.
The discharges from the main process stream and the storm-
water bypass stream after upgrading shall be allowed pursuant to
the limits in paragraphs
6 and
7 until such time as the Village
of Rockdale accomplishes regionalization
with
the Joliet West Side
Sewage Treatment Plant or until such time as the Village of Rock-
dale has grant monies made available to
it
to upgrade the existing
plant to Chapter 3 requirements or
until
April
16,
1986, whichever
occurs first.
9.
Should the discharge limits of paragraphs
6 and
7 not be
achieved after upgrading as outlined in paragraph 3, Respondent
shall
take
all
necessary
remedial
measures
to
achieve
the
discharge
limits.
10.
The
Respondents
shall
fulfill
all
requirements
for
maintain-
ing
the
status
of
the
Village
of
Rockdale on
the
Grants
priority
list
pursuant
to
the
schedule outlined by the Agency Division of
Water
Pollution
Control
Grants
Section.
11.
Respondent
shall
pursue
an
aggressive
program
of
enforcement
of
the
industrial
pretreatment
requirements
of
the
Village
of
Rock—
dale
Sewer
User
Ordinance,
including
establishment
of
a
program
to
sample
industrial
discharges.
Respondent
shall
continue
to
pro-
secute
cases previously filed pursuant to said ordinance and initi-
ate
new
actions
under
the
Ordinance
as
required
to
eliminate
industrial discharges which upset
plant
processes.
12.
The Agency is authorized to issue
a construction/operating
permit
to
Respondent
based
upon
the
Application
for
Permit
(Exhibit
L),
Alternate
“C”
of
the
Report
by
Beling
Consultants
(Exhibit
M)
and revisions and clarifications of the plans and specifications
(Exhibits
N
through
V),
41—391
—8—
13.
The Agency is authorized, pursuant to Rule 914 of Chapter
3, to modify the NPDES permIt for the Village of Rockdale so that
it is consistent with this Order.
14.
Respondent
shall
prepare
every
three
months
until
completion
of upgrading progress reports showing the status of compliance with
th.e terms and conditions of this stipulation and proposal for settle-
ment, including but not limited to the status of enforcement of
industrial pretreatment reqttIreinents and the status of construction
of improvements.
Respondent shall submit such report within fifteen
days
of
the end of the last month
for
which
the
report
was
prepared
to
the
Agency
Field
Operations
Section,
1701
South
First
Avenue,
Maywood, Illinois 60153.
15.
Respondent
shall
employ
no
less
than
two
full
time
operators
to conduct the necessary tasks in operating the proposed sewage
treatment facilities.
Respondent shall evaluate, within ninety
days of the start-up of the new treatment facilities, the need for
additional personnel to conduct laboratory and process control test-
ing, routine maintenance, industrial waste control investigation
and other items not directly associated with operating duties.
The
evaluation shall be submitted to the Agency as described in para-
graph 14 above.
16.
The Respondent shall embark upon and maintain a sludge
management program as outlined in Exhibits W and X.
Respondent
shall send sludge from
the facilities
only
to
sanitary
landfill
sites
which
have
the
proper
permits
to
accept
such
sludge.
If
an
alternate
means
of
disposal
is
used
such
method shall comply fully
with
the
requirements of the Act and regulations.
17.
Within
thirty—five
days
of
the
date
of
this
Order Respondent
shall,
by
certified
check
or
money
order
payable
to
the
State
of
Illinois,
pay
a
civil
penalty
of
$2000
which
is
to
be
sent
to:
State of Illinois
Fiscal Services Division
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
18, Count XII
of the third amended complaint is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Mrs. Anderson, Mr.
Duinelle
and Mr. Goodman concurred.
41—392
—9—
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify
that
the above Opinion and Order 1were adopted
on the
/~
day of
__________,
1981 by a vote of
~C.
~
/ ))
(~zi(~
ii
Christan
L.
Woffeiz~ty)C1er1~
Illinois Pollution-~-ontrolBoard
4
1—3 93