ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 7,
1980
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
)
Complainant,
)
v.
PCB 78—129
VILLAGE OF ITASCA, a municipal
corporation,
Respondent.
LORETTA
A.
WEBER,
ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
RESPONDENT;
LAWRENCE
C.
TRAEGER,
JR.,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
RESPONDENT.
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
Mr.
Goodman):
This
enforcement
action
was
filed
before
the
Board
on
May
10, 1978 by the Environmental Protection Agency (Agency).
The
final amended complaint, filed March
3,
1979,
alleges
violation
of Sections 4(d) and 12(a),
(b), and
(f) of the Environmental
Protection Act
(Act) plus violation of Rules 203(f), 404(f)ii(C),
405, 501(a), and 901 of thapter 3:
Water Pollution Control Rules
and Regulations (Water Rules) by the Village of Itasca, located
in DuPage County.
The Village never replied to the Agency’s Request for
Admission which included the alleged violations (R.14).
Itasca,
therefore,
has
admitted
exceeding
the
ammonia
nitrogen,
total
suspended
solids
(TSS),
fecal
coliform,
and
BOD~standards
of
its
NPDES
permit by failing to deny the admissións.
Respondent
has
admitted
to not filing regular industrial user reports
(R.13).
The Village’s treatment plant operator has testifed that he
failed to file non—compliance reports because he thought the city
clerk was filing them
(R.188).
During the hearing, however, Itasca
did insist that it did not deny the Agency access to its records.
Itasca owns and operates a sewage treatment plant
(STP)
which consists of primary and secondary clarifiers, an activated
sludge basin, and a polishing lagoon.
The discharge is chlor-
inated prior to discharge to Spring Brook which is tributary to
Salt Creek.
Sludge is routed from the primary clarifier to a
coil filter with automatic discharge into a landfill.
The
Agency contends that the plant is incapable of consistently
37—285
meeting the parameters of the Villagers NPDES permit or the
Board~sWater Rules.
The facility is hydraulically and organ”
ically overloaded and is not designed to remove ammonia nitrogen.
The major problem, however,
is the removal of excess sludge.
Excess sludge,
which easily becomes septic,
is presently
removed by operating the coil
filter.
The Village of Itasca has not been totally ignoring the
problem.
On December
14, 1976 the Village was informed in a
letter from the Agency that no construction permits for sewage
treatment improvements would be issued to Itasca as long as the
Board~sregionalization plan was
in effect,
In March,
1977,
the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the Board did not have the
authority to order regionalization.
~~ae~Lombardv.~çB,
66
Ill.
2d 503,
363 N.E.2d 814.
Following this opinion, munici~
palities were free to pursue construction permits and funding.
Itasca,
as of June,
1979,
had not
fully completed applying for
Step
1 funding; however,
it has received a grant priority number
of 15.
STP funding
is expected to be completed in three years,
Other factors have also complicated the problem.
In early
1977 a landfill site to which the village brought sludge became
contaminated when operators accepted toxic chemicals from another
user.
The site became unuseable and dried sludge instead had
to be dumped into a ditch adjacent to the treatment plant.
Dumping was discontinued when odors became overpowering.
Fif~
teen to eighteen days were spent locating a suitable landfill
site,
During that time sludge accumulated
in the lagoon and
adversely affected the effluent.
Freezing weather also interfered with Itascas
efforts to
eliminate discharges
in excess of NPDES standards.
In mid~1977,
soundings were made of the lagoon; bids
for cleaning the lagoon
were received in October,
Cleaning operations were interrupted
in December by freezing and not completed until summer of 1978.
In January,
1978 one primary clarifier ceased
functioning,
but
freezing prevented access to the tank until March.
After thaw~
ing occurred,
the problem was investigated and a chain was
ordered.
The chain was replaced in June,
Effluent quality was
decreased during the six months that the clarifier was disabled,
Itasca, however, has not adequately answered all of the
allegations.
The Village offers no convincing explanation for
its failure
to
file
1)
industrial users reports and 2)
non’-
compliance reports.
Filing mandatory reports and hiring
an
individual
to operate
a sludge vacuum filter are not considered
capital
improvements, nor are these activities particularly
affected by the weather,
Itasca was informed by the Agency in 1977 that hiring an
extra person to operate the vacuum filter and coil filter on
weekends would improve the quality of its discharge
(R,101—102).
Since that notification, the Village has not added an extra
37~
236
—3—
worker at the plant (R.186).
The Village claims that it has
been advertising continuously and has found very
few
employees
(It. 186).
The Board believes that the Village could have found
an additional employee within the space of
two
years considering
the environmental importance of operating the coil filter seven
days a week.
The Board finds the Village of Itasca in violation
of 501(a) of the Water Rules.
The Agency has also alleged that the Respondent has denied
it access to records in violation of Section 4(d) of the Act.
The section gives the Agency wauthority to enter at’ all reason-
able times upon any private or public propertyu within consti-
tutional limitations to investigate possible violations.
The
Agency has not alleged that its investigators were denied entry
to
the
plant.
The
Board
finds
the
lack
of
cooperation
by
the
Village
in
making
its
records immediately available, for inspec-
tion reflects more lack of administrative ability on the part of
the people in charge than an attempt to deny the Agency access
to the records.
The allegation of violation of Section 4(d) of
the Act will be dismissed.
The Village of Itasca by failing to respond to the Agency’s
Request fqr Admissions admitted to the alleged violations.
The
Board
has
found
testimony
and evidence that supports all
the
allegations
with
the
exception
of
the
alleged
violation
of
Sec-
tion 4(d) of the Act.
The Board, therefore,
finds the Village
of Itasca in violation of Sections 12(a),
(b), and
(f) of the
Act and of Rules 203(f), 404(f)ii(C),
405, 501(a) and 901 of
the Board’s Water Rules.
The Board has considered all factors
bearing upon the reasonableness of the discharge and has decided
that a penalty is necessary for the enforcement of the act due
to the lack of cooperation with the Agency and the failure to
try to resolve the existing pollution problem.
The Board,
therefore, imposes a penalty of $500 upon the Village of Itasca
for the enumerated violations.
Exhibit 20 contains a number of possible temporary solutions
to the Village’s sludge problem as proposed by its consultant.
Testimony indicates that the installation of an aerated sludge
holding tank would be the best method to alleviate the problem.
However, upon review of Exhibit 20, the Board finds that the
option presented as Method A by the consultant is more cost
effective and is considered technically effective by those who
testified (R.50,
101).
Method A calls for hiring one additional
operator and operating the vacuum filter seven days a week, two
shifts per day.
This alternative also involves sludge hauling.
The
Board finds
the
efficient
use
of
existing
equipment
and
pro-
per
maintenance will solve the sludge problems without major
capital expenditures by the Village.
The Board, therefore, will
order the Village to execute compliance Method A and upgrade
maintenance procedures so as to alleviate the sludge problem
at the STP.
37—287
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclu~
sions of law of the Board
in this matter,
ORDER
It
is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:
1)
The Board finds the Village of Itasca in violation of
Sections 12(a),
(b) and
(f) of the Environmental Protec~
tion Act
(Act) and Rules 203(f),
404(f)ii(C),
405,
501(a)
and 901 of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Control Rules and
Regulations.
2)
The Village of Itasca shall hire one additional operator
and operate its vacuum filter seven days a week,
two shifts
per day,
in accordance with Method A noted in Exhibit 20,
which
Exhibit
is
incorporated by reference as if fully
set forth herein, within
60 days of the date of this Order,
3)
The Village of Itasca shall operate and maintain its sewage
treatment plant in a manner that minimizes the build up of
sludge
in the system,
4)
The Village of Itasca shall continue participation in the
Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Works Construction Grant
program
in an effort to upgrade its entire wastewater
treatment system,
5)
Within 45 days of the date of this Order, the Village of
Itasca shall pay by certified check or money a penalty of
$500 to be sent to:
Fiscal Services Department
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
6)
The complaint of violation of Section
4(d)
of the Environ~
mental Protection Act
is dismissed,
IT IS SO ORDERED,
I,
Christan L,
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, he;eby certify, the, above Opinion and Order were
adopted on the
1~~1
day of
1980 by a vote
of
~O
stan
L,
Mo
Illinois Pollution