ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December

5,

1985

U~LINOISENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Complainant,

)

PCB 84—85

V.

\itLE~AGEOF ORANGEVILLE,

Respondent.

;~lLLIAME.

BLAKNEY and MATTHEW J. DUNN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS

GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF

OF COMPLAINANT.

THE

HON. MILTON

J.

BOSTIAN, VILLAGE PRESIDENT, APPEARED ON BEHALF

OF RESPONDENT.

OPINEON AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J.

Theodore Meyer):

This matter comes before

the Board upon

a complaint filed

on

June

29, 1984

by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency) against the Village of Orangeville.

The complaint

contains nine counts alleging violations of sections 12(a),

12(b)

and 12(f)

of the Environr~enta1Protection Act (“Act”)

concerning

water

pollution and sections 15 and 18 concerning public drinking

water supplies.

The applicable Board regulations also alleged

to

have been violated are

as follows:

35

Ill. Adm. Code 304.120(a)

(total

suspended

~olide

and five—day biochemical oxygen demand)

(*TSSft

and

“BOD”);

304.106

(effluent turbidity);

302.403

(downstream turbidity);

309.102 (monitoring

and reporting

requirements);

309.202(a)

and 309.203

(permitting

requirements

for treatment works);

602.101(a)

and 602.102 (permitting

requirements for public

water

supplies).

Parallel violations

of

the Village’s NPDES permit are alleged.

The Village of Orangeville

is located

in Stephenson County,

Illinois,

Its populace consists of approximately 600 persons.

The Village owns and operates the wastewater

treatment’ facility

arid public water supply which are the subject of this enforcement

action,

The Board will treat

the allegations concerning these

facilities

separately.

The ~astewater Treatment Facility

Orangeville’s wastewater

treatment facility consists of,

inter

alia,

a single contact stabilization plant with liquid

sludge storage tanks,

It has

a design average flow of 0.06

million gallons per day (“MGD”)

and

a design maximum flow of 0.15

!4GD.

Discharge from the

facility

flows into Richland Creek,

a

67-09

---

tributary of the Pecatonica River.

The facility operates under

?IPDES

permit

No.

1L0024805

effective

as

of

September

2,

1983

and

expiring on August

1,

1988.

This permit imposes limits of

30 mg/i BOD

arid

30 mg/i TSS on a monthly average.

The operation

of the plant results

in the formation of sewage sludge, which

is

disposed of by laridspreading on agricultural lands.

The

Agency

has

lodged

a

seven

count

complaint

concerning

this facility.

The first count charges that the Village caused

or allowed

the discharge of effluent which had BOD and TSS

concentrations in excess of

five times

the numerical standard as

measured

by

a grab sample.

These violations allegedly occurred

on or before February

7,

1983 up to and including the date of the

fiLing

of the complaint.

Effluent containing

two times

the

applicable numerical standard

for TSS as measured by

a daily

composite sample

is also alleged

to have been discharged since on

or before October

12,

1983.

Such discharges are alleged

to be

in

violation of

35

Ill.

Adm,

Code 304,120(a)

and Section 12(a)

of

the

Act.

At hearing, complainant introduced waste treatment works

effluent sampling forms which demonstrated

that on February

7,

1983; March 14,

1983; July 27, 1983; October

12,

1983 and

November

21, 1983 the plant was operating

in violation of the

Board

rules and

the Act as alleged.

(Comp. Group Ex,

2.).

In

response,

the Village submitted seventeen sampling forms

beginning with January,

1984 and ending with July 1985 to show

that

the plant has achieved satisfactory test results.

However,

these

forms do little

to refute

the allegations.

First of all,

seven

of the thirty—four

tests submitted by the Village do

indicate violations.

These violations are not negligible:

I3OD

ranged from 42 to 218 mg/i and TSS ranged from 49

to 290 mg/i.

Moreover, seven unsatisfactory tests out of

thirty—four indicates

that the plant was operating out of compliance approximately 20

percent

of the

time.

Secondly,

even

if the plant were operating

satisfactorily during 1985, this does not serve

to demonstrate

that

the plant was

in compliance on the dates alleged

in 1983

and

1984.

To the contrary,

the forms submitted by the Village

substantiated additional violations on January 27,

1984 and

February

3,

1984.

while

the Village’s submittal does indicate

compiiance

through March, April,

May and finally June of 1984

when the complaint was filed,

the Board cannot agree

that the

violations

are

intermittent

in

nature.

The

Village

contends

that

the

violations

are

isolated

incidents

brought

about by rainy days

and

Mondays,

which

are

heavy

wash

days.

The

Village

argues

that

it

is

absurd

to

expect

perfect

performance.

However,

the

Board

finds,

as

already

noted,

that

the

excursions

are

significant

in

both

the

number of occurrences and their degree.

It

is

incumbent

upon

Orangeville

to

take

steps

to

cure

these

operational

problems.

If

rainfall

events

were

to

excuse

non—compliance,

violations would be

so

common

as

to

make

the

environmentai

goals

contained

in

the

Act

unattainable,

67-10

---

The Village also argues that Richiand Creek

is

in effect a

secondary contact water

and thus,

the violating discharges are

~ot capable of polluting

its already degraded water

quality.

This argument

is based

on the Village’s assertion

tjiat

the creek

is contaminated with insecticides,

farm chemicals ~nd bovine

fecal matter.

(R.

at 135—36),

The Village argues that

since no

one swims

in

or drinks

the water,

its discharges have no harmful

etfect.

The Board points out that all waters of the State must

meet

the general use standards unless otherwise specifically

provided.

35 Iii.

Adm.

Code 303.201.

Section 303.441,

which

classifies certain waters

as

“secondary contact waters”, does not

inciude Richiand Creek.

It

is not within

the Village’s

discretion or expertise

to unilaterally determine

the use

classifications

for

the waters of this State.

Accordingly,

the

general use standards apply.

In summary,

the Board

finds that

Drangeville has violated Section 12(a)

of the Act and

.35

ii.

Adm.

Code 304.120(a).

Counts

II and III are related

to Count

I,

Count

II charges

the Village with discharging effluent containing obvious

unnatural

color and/or sludge solids

in violation of

35

111.

Adri,

Code 304.106 and Section 12(a),

Count

III alleges that the

Village’s discharges resulted

in the presence of

sludge deposits,

unnatural color and/or turbidity

in Richland Creek downstream of

the Village’s outfall

in violation of

35

Ill. Adm,

Code 302.403

and Section 12(a) of the Act.

The Board

notes that Section

302.403 applies

to secondary contact waters and thus

its citation

appears

to be an error on the Agency’s part.

The analgous

genefal use water quality standard

is Section 302.203.

Evidence

introduced

by the Agency establishes that on February

7,

1983;

March 14,

1983; October

12,

1983 and January

9,

1984

the Agency

inspector observed high turbidity and solids

in the effluent.

Simii~rly’,~1udg~ barik~, pluntes of solids

arid plumes of turbidity

were observed downstream of the effluent on these occasions,

while conditions upstream were

stated

to be clear.

(Camp. Group

Ex.

1).

Special analyses conducted

in the stream on March 14,

1983

and July 27,

1983 validate these field observations.

Specifically, on March 14 upstream BOD/TSS was 1.5/9 while

downstream was 40/66,

On July 27

upstream samples were

2/90;

downstream samples were

31/130,

(Comp.

Group Ex.

3).

The

Vtllage responds that these charges are exaggerated;

that there

is no turbidity or

solids downstream or

in Its effluent b.ut does

not explain

the Agency observations and tests.

Although no dates

were testified

to,

even the Village’s witness testified that

while normally the effluent was clear, after

rainstorms

it

appeared cloudy.

(R. at 95).

Thus,

the Board

finds

the Village

to have violated Section 12(a)

and

35

Ill. Adm.

Code

304.1.06.

The Board declines to find the Village

in violation

of’ Section

3u2..4.03

as

it

is

inapplicable

to Richland Creek,

Count IV concerns the Village’s

failure

to monitor and

report

the concentration of TSS and Count

V

similarly concerns

the Village’s failure to monitor and

report the concentration of

fecal coliform

in

its effluent both

in violation of

its NPDES

67-il

---

permit,

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 309.102 and Section

12(f)

of

the 7~cL.

Count

VI alleges that the Village also violated its permit,

section

12(f)

and 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 309.102

by failing

to

provide:

and utilize equipment to

test

for TSS,

Section

12(f)

and

35

Ill.

Adin.

Code 309.102 provide that

it

is unlawful

to discharge

contaminants

into the waters of the State

in violation

of any

term or condition imposed

by

a NPDES permit.

At hearing

it was

established

that Orangeville has never

filed

the required monthly

reports on TSS and

fecal coliform

(R.

at 45—46).

As

to P55

monitoring,

the Village maintains that

it does not have

the

equipment or personnel to do such monitoring and

that

there

is

rio

known evidence

that it is necessary or that any damage

has been

done,

However,

the plant operator does perform tests

for pH an’~

ROD

(R~. at

106).

No explanation

is given for the

failure

to

perform testing

for

suspended solids.

The operator also

testified that

in the past the

tests have been performed

for

the

v~.llageby an outside laboratory.

The Board echoes

the Agency’s

argument that monitoring

and reporting form an

integral part of

the NPDES permit system which

is the basis

for the state

and

national effort

to control water pollution.

If

all permittees

were allowed

to disregard these requirements, the NPDES program

would be

of

little

use

in this effort.

As

to monitoring

feed

coliform, Orangeville appears

to misunderstand the

requirements.

The Village objects to monitoring because

it

contends that Richiand Creek contains

a coliforrn count of

one

to

two million after

a

rain.

However,

the monitoring

requirement

applies

to the effluent not the creek itself.

The Village

asserts that chlorination is unnecessary in Richiand Creek

because

it

is

a secondary contact water

and

thus~,monitoring

for

fecal choliform

is simply

a waste.

The Board reiterates

that

Richland Creek

is

not,

in

fact,

a secondary contact

wa.ter

and

that monitoring

and reporting

are an integral part of the NPDES

program.

Permit conditions which ‘the~’Village finds objectionable

should be challenged

in the context of

a permit appeal.

Such

conditions cannot he

unilaterally disregarded

after

the time

for

such an appeal

has

run.

Thus,

the Board

finds

the Village

to be

in violation of

an NPDES permit condition,

35

Ill.

Adrn.

Code

309.102 and Section

12(f)

of the Act.

Lastly, Count VII pertains

to

the Respondent’s disposal

of

sewage sludge generated by its wastewater

facility.

The Village

allegedly spread

the sludge on agricultural lands without

obtaining an Agency Construction and Operating permit

in

violation of

35

Ill.

Adm. Code 309,202(a),

309.203 and Section

12(b)

of the Act.

The Agency,

at hearing, demonstrated that

the

nscessary permit has never been issued

and the sludge hauler

admitted he had no such permit

(R.

at

48,

96).

The Village

stated that it objected

to the requirements for securing

a

permit,

specifically submitting

a surveyor map of the spreading

location and

a copy of

the contract with

the

individual

owning

the land.

Thus,

it

is not disputed that Orangeville simply

determined

to ignore

the regulatory requirements and

the Board

finds

them

in violation thereof.

Although Orangeville submitted

a permit issued

to the

sludge hauler by the county health

67-12

---

department,

this

in no way

fulfills the Village’s obligations

under

the Environmental Protection Act.

CR.

at

91,

Resp.

Ex.l).

The Board points

out that the state permitting

requirement

helps

to insure that among other things, groundwater

supplies

in the

area will be adequately protected.

Public Drinking water Supply

The Agency also alleges violations concerning

the Village’s

public water

supply.

Orangeville’s public water supply consists

of,

inter

aliaç

two we11s~, a pump house, fluoridation equipment,

a 47,000 gallon elevated storage

tank,

and water mains,

The

system serves approximately 600 persons.

Count

VIII of the Agency’s complaint pertains

to the

construction and operation of a water main extension by the

Village without first obtaining

ac Agency Construction and

Operating Permit

in violation of

35

Ill. Mm,

Code 602.101(a),.

35

ill.

Mm.

Code 602.102 and Section

15

of the Act,

The Village

contends that Section 15 does not require a permit for

the

extension because

it did not affect “sanitary quality, mineral

quality,

or adequacy of the public water

supply.”

Id.

The

‘~ii1lage, however, misperceives this provision’s qualifying

language.

Under

Section

15, permits are required for

“any”

construction and plans and specifications must show all

construction which

“may”

affect quality and adequacy of

the

supply.

Construction

of

a new water main clearly may affect

quality and adequacy and

is not excluded under

35 Ill.

Adnt.

Code

602.101

as

the Village claims,

This section merely excludes

Nroutine maintenance, service pipe connections, hydrants and

valves,

or replacement of equipment with

its equivalents.”

Id.

The

Village

freely

admits

that

it

ignored

the

permit

requirement

“~because it

didn’t

make

any

sense.”

(R.

at

171).

The Board disagrees with this characterization of the permitting

requirement.

The permitting process insures that the integrity

of

the public water system

is maintained.

The Illinois

legislature

has determined that “state supervision of public

water

supplies

is

necessary

in

order

to

protect

the

public

from

d~iseaseand

to assure an adequate supply of pure water

for all

beneficial uses,”

Section

14

of the Act.

The Board

finds

Orangeville

in violation of

those provisions alleged

in Count

VIII.

Count IX alleges violations of Section 18

of the Act which

requires:

Owners

and official custodians

of public water

supplies, shall direct and maintain the continuous

operation and maintenance

of water—supply

facilities

so that water shall be assuredly safe

in quality, clean, adequate

in quantity,

and of

satisfactory mineral character

for ordinary

domestic consumption,

67-13

---

The Agency alleges that since June

15,

1983

the Village

violated this provision by

a)

failing

to repair and maintain the

primary well pump line

to prevent chattering;

b)

failing

to

provide

a backup system for activating

the

second well pump

should

the primary pump fail;

c)

failing

to provide

an alarm

system

to alert

responsible officials

in the event of system

failure;

d)

failing

to

routinely exercise water

valves;

e)

failing

to provide

a secure lock on the elevated tank hatchway,

to

prevent possible sabotage and contamination of the system;

and

E)

failure

to provide

a master water meter

to determine the

amount of water

used,

As

to

the chattering pump,

the Village attempted

to

introduce

a letter

from the Lyons Well Drilling Company

to

demonstrate that the chattering was not occurring

in

the primary

pump but rather

in

a little used emergency gear drive

(Resp.

~x. 4).

The Agency objected

to introduction of the letter on

hearsay grounds but the hearing officer allowed

the Village

to

make

an

offer

of proof

as

to

its contents.

The Board accepts the

offer

of proof

and allows

the evidence under

35

Ill. Mm.

Code

103.204.

Because

the evidence concerning

the first

allegation is

contradictory,

the Board declines

to

find

that the Village

violated Section

18 by failing

to

repair the chattering pump.

The Village also contends that they have installed

a back—up

pump and

an alarm system and that the water valves are

in fact

routinely exercised.

The low—water pressure alarm

and back—up

pump are vital

to insure both the integrity and adequacy of

the

isiater supply.

Lack ~f thase r~ecessitieslead to an

overflow

incident of fluoride

into Orangeville’s water

system on June

14,

1983.

(R.

at

81, Comp.

Ex.

7).

As

to these alleged

deficiencies,

the Mayor

stated on

the

record

that they have all

been

corrected.

In

fact,

the Agency stated

their belief at

hearing that

a

low pressure alarm system has been

installed.

(R.

at

85).

Since

the only evidence before the Board

is

conflicting sworn

testimony,

the Board will find

for

the Village

as

to these three allegations.

The Village does not deny that it has

failed

to install

a

lock

on

the water

tower but contends that the lock

is unnecessary

because they “do not have any degenerates around town.”

(R.

at

190),

However,

the Village does admit

that periodically

youngsters gain access

to the water

tower

for purposes of

spraying graffitti on it.

A padlock

is a sensible precaution

to

guard

the integrity of

the water

supply against such pranksters,

whether well—meaning or

not.

Turning

to the

last allegation,

the Village also admits that

it has not installed

a master water meter.

The Village contends

that

to install

such

a meter would

raise rates

and

has no

relation

to

the safety or purity of the water,

The Village

prefers

to calculate water consumption

by recording

the amount of

time

its pumps

operate.

The Board suggests that

the purchase

cost of

a water meter

is insignificant compared

to the cost of

67-14

---

7.

the water

that

can

be

saved

on

leaks

detected

by

use

of th~

meter.

The Village admitted that

in

the past

it

knew certain

valves were

leaking but

could

not determine how

much

CR.

at

193).

The use of

a master water meter

is

a valuable tool

in

ascertaining such

leaks to the ultimate benefit of

the water

customers.

Early leak detection can save money and helps

to

assure

an adequate supply as required under Section

18.

Thus,

the Board

finds that the village has violated Section

18

of the

Act by failing

to provide

a padlock and master water meter

for

the public water

supply.

Findings and penalty

After evaluating

the

factors listed

in Section 33(c)

of the

Act,

the Board finds

that:

the Village’s violations

have an

adverse

impact on the general welfare and health of

the people o~

the State of

Illinois by contributing contaminants

to Richiand

Creek

and endangering

the adequacy and quality of

the public

drinking water

supply.

The Board

further finds that

the

Village’s facilities are socially and economically valuable and

suitably located.

The Board also finds that it

is technically

feasible and economically reasonable

for

the Village

to eliminate

these violations.

Indeed,

some of the measures

to be taken,

especially concerning the

public water

supply, require only

minimal

time and virtually no expense.

As

to

the appropriate penalty,

the Board

notes that many

violations were alleged and proven by the Agency.

The Board must

concur with th~Agency’s statement that although some of

the

violations may not appear

to be of the most serious type, each

has

the potential

to create serious

harm.

Taken together,

the

failure

to correct these violations demonstrates a cavalier

attitude on

the Village’s part concerning

this state’s

environmental laws.

Were each political subdivision

in this

state

to determine unilaterally which environmental laws

it will

adhere

to and which it will reject,

th.e state’s environmental

program would

be

in

a state

of hopeless disarray.

The Village

freely admits that

it simply has disregarded requirements

“that

don’t make sense”

and thus,

chosen

to obey requirements

of Its

choosing and

to disregard others.

It is also readily apparent

that the Village lacks

the necessary commitment to come into

compliance.

The Board

notes the violations are ongoing

in nature

and with

the exception of some apparent corrections concerning

the water supply,

the violations persist.

After evaluating

all

the facts and

circumstances, as well

as all

of

the testimony and

exhibits,

the Board

finds that

a $3000 fine

is appropriate

to aid

in

the

enforcement

of

the

Act.

Because

of

the

Village’s’’

intransigency

in

correcting

its

numerous

violations,

the

Board

will also provide

for

an additional $1000 per month penalty, not

to exceed

a total of $7000,

to be paid by the Village

for each

month

it delays

in taking

steps

to abate

the violations beyond

an

initial nine months leeway period,

Accordingly,

the Board wilt

retain continuing jurisdiction of

this proceeding.

67-15

---

—8~

This Opinion constitutes

the Board’s

findings of

fact;

and

conclusions of

law

in

this matter.

ORDER

1.

The Board

finds that the Village

of Orangeville has

violated Sections 12(a), 12(b),

12(f),

15 and

18

of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Act and

35

lii. Mm.

Code 304.120(a),

304.106,

302.203,

309.102,

309.202(a),

309.203,

602.101(a)

and 602.102.

2.

The Village of Oranqeville

shall cease

and desist from

further violatioo~:of

the Act,

the Board’s regulations

and

its NPDES

permit.

3.

Within

30 days o~the date of this Order,

the Village

of

Orangeville shal1~by certified check or money

order, p~iy

a civil penalty of $3000 payable

to

the State

of Illinoio

and designated

for deposit into the Environmental

Protection Trust

Fund, which

is

to be sent

to:

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Fiscal Services Division

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield,

Illinois 62706

4.

Within

9 months of

the date of

this Order,

the Village

of

Orangeville shall:

a.

Provide and install equipment to test for TSS and

begin monitoring

and reporting TSS and fecal

coliform

to

the Agency in accordance with

its r~~PDE:

permit?

b.

Submit Construction and Operating permit

applications

to

the

Agency

for

its

sludge

spreading

operation

in accordance with 35

Ill. Mm.

Code

309.202(a)

and 309.203;

c.

Submit an “as built” permit application

to

the

Agency

for

the water main extension;

and

ci.

Install

a padlock

on

the water

tower

and install

a

master

water meter.

5,

Within

9 months of

the date of this Order,

the Village

at

Orangeville

shall submit

to the Agency a Sewer System

Evaluation Survey (SSES)

identifying

the sources

of

excess infiltration and inflow

(I/I)

and other factors

contributing

to

its wastewater

treatment facility’s

operational problems.

Within 12 months of the date of

this Order,

the Village shall submit

to

the Agency

a

plan, with increments of progress,

to

reduce I/I and

67-16

---

other

factors

identified

in

the

SSES

to

levels

which wiLl

achieve compliance with the water pollution

regulations.

The plan shall provide

for compliance

within

a maximum of

18 months

from the date

of this

Order.

6,

Should

the Village

of Organgevilie

fail

‘to correct any

at

the violations enumerated

in paragraph

4

above within 9

months of

the date of this Order,

or

fail

to comply with

the provisions of paragraph

5,

it shall pay

an additional

$1000 per month

for

each month of delay.

However,

in

no

event shall

the penalties payable under

this paragraph

exceed $7000.

Such penalties

shall be paid

in

like

manner

and

to the same address as provided

in paragraph

3

of this Order,

IT

IS SO ORDERED.

I,

Dorothy

M.

Gurin, Clerk

of

the

Illinois Pollution Control

F3oard,

hereby certify that the abov~Opinion and Order was

adopted on the

~

day of

~

,

1985,

by

a

vote

of

‘V—C’

~

~

Dorothy

M. Gunn,

Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

67-17