ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    July 8, 1971
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    * 7l~26
    CITY OF EAST ST. LOUIS
    )
    Mr. John W, Leskera, Special Assistant Attorney General, for the Agency.
    Mr. Robert F. Godfrey
    arid
    Mr. Robert Mays,
    East
    St. Louis, ILL,, for the
    Opinion
    of
    the Board (by Mr. Currie)~
    Respondent.
    East
    St,
    Louis operates a pr&mary sewage treatment plant
    consisting of four sedimentation tanks, whose effluent goes
    to
    the Mississippi
    River. The Agency com~1ain~that
    the
    City had
    discharged inadequately treated sewage and that the plant was
    not under the supervision of a properly certified operator, and
    proved it. We order the City to cease these violations and
    impose a nominal penalty.
    The uncontradicted evidence is that no operator had the
    certification required by theregulations (R. 8~20 ; Rules &
    Regulations SWB~2), That this violation was no mere technicality
    is shown by the deplorable operation of the plant. Uncontested
    testimony was that
    on
    numerous occasions during the
    past
    year
    no
    more than two of the four tanks were
    in
    operation (R. 35,46,54755,
    l03,l06,l08~l0, 113,115), so that those used were grossly overloaded
    (K, 43,98), and that more than once the raw sewage coming to
    the plant was bypassed directly to the river without any semblance
    of treatment CR, 34-35,49,5l,ll5~16). No explanation was offered
    for this shocking behavior, The regulations (SWB~13, Rule 301,
    Par. 10 (b)), require substantially complete removal
    of
    setteable
    solids, and the failure to use the existing facilities caused
    repeated violations of this requirement, Plant records show an
    average settleables removal of only
    74,6
    when more than 90
    removal is expected CR, 65~66,67,69). There was testimony that
    one of the tanks is somewhat broken CR, 115),
    The Agency also attempted to show that the City~s effli~ent
    was excessively acidic, and the evidence does indicate a low pH
    CR. 63~64,69,77), But there was nothing in
    the
    complaint about
    acid, and
    we
    do not believe the charge
    of
    inadequate
    sewage
    tEeat~
    ment
    gave fair warning that acid
    was an
    issue. Acid is
    not
    the
    normal result of inadequate sewage treatment
    .
    Here it comes from
    an industrial discharge CR. 78), and
    the
    City
    has
    commendably
    taken steps to have the acid treated before it
    is
    placed in the
    sewers
    by
    September 1, 1971 (R,l23), The industrial discharger,
    of course,
    could be
    made
    a
    party
    if a complaint were to be filed
    on the acid issuer But the
    present
    complaint does not support the
    acid proof. Cf,
    EPA v,
    Commonwealth
    Edison
    Co,,HO~4 ~‘eb, 17
    ,l97l).
    We
    shall order immediate correction
    of the
    violations found.
    Moreover, these offenses
    indicate a shocking inattention to the
    2 79
    obligations of
    municipal employees charged with important responsibility
    for protecting the public health, We cannot dispense with money
    penalties under these circumstances. The individuals responsible were
    not made parties, so they cannot be ordered to pay. The City
    must pay
    to ensure better
    performance in the future. But any violation of this
    order will subject any responsible individual as well as the City it-
    self to the risk of money penalties.
    The Agency weeks a $6000 penalty, which is quite small in relation
    to the seriousness of the violations. But East St. Louis is a poverty-
    stricken city, struggling with staggering financial burdens; it has
    a brand-new city administration that has pledged itself to a sincere
    efford at abating pollution (R. 121-26). We think in light of these
    facts the penalty should be set at a nominal
    $200 to leave the City
    needed funds to correct its pollution problems.
    We add that our new regulation’ #R 70-3 have accelerated the
    date for secondary treatment along the Mississippi, and that East
    St. Louis must move very soon to improve its facilities. Primary
    treatment, even when the plant is operating properly, is quite
    insufficient to protect the receiving stream. We urge the City
    to comply fully with this important requirement.
    ORDER
    1. The City of East St. Louis shall byySeptember 1, 1971
    place its sewage treatment plant under the supervision
    of an operator certified as required by the regulations.
    2, The City of Eaat St. Louis shall by August 15, 1971
    repair the broken sedimentation tank.
    3. The City of East St. Louis shall immediately begin proper
    operation of its sewage treatment plant and ahall
    immediately cease and desist from the discharge of inade-
    quately treated sewage,
    4. The City of East St. Louis shall by August 15, 1971
    pay to the State of Illinois the sum of $200 as a
    penalty for the violations found in the Board~s opinion.
    5, The City of East St. Louis shall by September 1, 1971
    file with the Agency and with the Baord a report indicat-
    ing its compliancewith this order.
    I, Regina E. Ryan, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board certify
    that the Board adopted the above opin~
    his 8
    day
    of
    ~,
    1971.
    2 80

    Back to top