ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November 21, 1984
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 83—5
CITY OF SALEM,
Respondent.
MR. VINCENT W. MORETH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON
BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT.
MR. MICHAEL JONES, CITY ATTORNEY, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by W.
3. Nega):
This matter comes before the Board on the January 10,
1983
Complaint brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency).
Count
I of the Complaint alleged that, during various months
from February, 1981 until October, 1982, the Respondent discharged
effluent from its wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) containing
excessive levels of five—day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD~)and
total suspended solids
(TSS)
in violation of the effluent limitations
set forth in its NPDES Permit No. IL 0023264;
35 Ill. Mm.
Code
309.102
(formerly Rule 901 of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Regula-
tions);
and Section 12(a) and 12(f) of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act
(Act).
Count II alleged that, on various specified dates between
February 16, 1981 and November 26, 1982, the Respondent discharged
effluent from its
~WTP
with concentrations of BOO
and TSS in
excess of five times the applicable numerical
stat~dardsin violation
of
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 304.120(c)
formerly
Rule 404(c) of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Regulations
and Section 12(a) of the Act.
A hearing was held on August 21,
1984 in Salem,
Illinois and
the parties filed a Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement on
August 23,
1984.
The City of Salem
is a municipality of approximately 7,300
people located in central Marion County,
Illinois on U.S. Route
50 and Interstate 57.
The Respondent owns and operates
a sewage
treatment plant which is
a contact stabilization variation of the
activated sludge process followed by rapid sand filters and
chlorination.
This facility includes bar screen/comminutor
R1-1g~
—2—
primary sedimentation, barminutor, grit chamber, primary sedi-
mentation
tank,
activated
sludge biological treatment,
secondary
clarification, tertiary
sand
filtration,
and
effluent
disinfection
with
chlorine.
Under
normal
operating
conditions
(no
rainfall),
the
City
of
Salem’s
WWTP
discharges
less than 10 mg/i BOD
and
12 mg/i suspended
solids into Town Creek, a navigable Illinos water which is tributary
to Crooked Creek and the i~askaskiaRiver.
However, because of
the
apparent
misdesign
or
misconstruction
of
the
plant,
if
rainfall
exceeds one inch or more,
the Respondent’s
WWTP
becomes flooded
and fails to meet the requisite effluent standards.
During such
a flooding period, the flow sometimes exceeds five million gallons
per day which is twice the
WWTP’s
rated
capacity,
When the
flooding picks up high solids sludge from the City of Salem’s
plant and washes
it
to the creek,
it
often
takes a period of two
weeks
for the facility to regain treatment efficiency.
Thus, the City of Salem has a prior history of problems
associated with the operations of
its wastewater treatment plant.
On June 6,
1978, the City of Salem requested
a variance from Rule
602(b) of Chapter 3:
Water Pollution Regulations
in order to
construct a bypass which would carry the excess flow during
flooding, with at least minimal chlorination, directly to the
receiving stream.
On August 24, 1978, the Board dismissed the
City of Salem’s petition without prejudice because the City
failed to demonstrate compliance with applicable Federal Water
Pollution Control Act requirements and failed to provide information
on the downstream effects of its proposed bypass.
(See:
City of
Salem
v.
IEPA, PCB 78—167,
32 PCB 165, Opinion and Order of
August 24, 1978).
On May 24,
1982, the City of Salem again
requested a variance in PCB 82—64 to construct a temporary bypass,
but failed to pursue its request for relief.
(See:
~~of
Salem v.
IEPA,
PCB 82—64, Order of June
14,
1984).
The City of Salern~swastewater treatment plant was also the
subject of a prior enforcement action in PCB 78—137 brought by
the Agency
for violations which were similar to the violations
alleged in the complaint filed in the present case~.
(See:
IEPA v. City of Salem,
PCB 78—137,
40 PCB 111, Opinion and Order
of December 18, 1980).
The Complaint in PCB 78—137 alleged that
the City of Salem violated the BOD
,
total
suspended solids, and
fecal coliform requirements set fo~thin its NPDES Permit and
alleged that the City failed to maintain a flow of 1.0 million
gallois per day on various specified dates between November,
1977
and September,
1978.
On December 18,
1980, the Board issued an
Order in PCB
78—137
which accepted the proposed settlement
agreement;
ordered the City of Salem to timely perform all actions agreed to
in the Stipulated Settlement agreement;
imposed a penalty of
$2,500.00; and
found the City in violation of Rules 410(a)
and
901 of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Regulations and Section 12(f)
of the Act.
61~i94
Pursuant
to
the
Stipulated
Settlement
agreement
in
PCB
78—137, the City of Salem was required to:
(I)
file a variance
petition
with
the
Board
within
a
reasonable
time
after
“the
next
significant storm event,~’and
(2) commit to a grant program to
expand, modify, and upgrade its wastewater treatment plant in
accordance with a specified compliance schedule.
However,
the
Agency has indicated that the City of Salem has “failed to comply
with the stipulated settlement” in PCB 78—137 and “has consistently
failed to meet effluent requirement for BOD
and total suspended
solids of its NPDES Permit.”
(Stip.
4).
M~reover,the Agency
has noted that “there have been continuing violations
at the
facility during periods of rainfall,
and during periods of reduced
efficiency of the treatment process due to rainfall
since the
~i1ing of the Complaint in Cause No.
PCB 78—137”
(and also since
the filing of the Complaint in the present case,
PCB 83—5).
(Stip.
4).
Although the City has admitted the al1egatiox~set forth
in
the Complaint in PCB 83-5 for settlement purposes, the Respondent
has maintained that excursions beyond the NPDES Permit limitations
have been due to “misdesign~’of the
WWTP
which
render
it
inadequate
to properly handle incoming flows during rainfall.
(Stip.
4).
Because heavy rainfall results in large
flows into the WWTP which
wash biological
solids from the activated sludge process into the
receiving stream,
a pollution load due to the washout of biological
solids, as well
as reduced treatment efficiency, serves to increase
the levels of pollutants which are discharged from the plant
during periods of substantial rainfall,
(Stip.
4).
The Agency has stated that:
(1) the City of Salem discharged
effluent from its WWTP in violation of its NPDES Permit limits
for
BOD,
and
TSS
during
32 specified months between February,
1981 an~June,
1984;
(2)
effluent was discharged from the WWTP
with concentrations of BOD
and TSS
in excess of five times the
numerical standard set for~hin 35
Ill, Adm. Code 304.120(c) on
numerous specified dates between February
16, 1981 and June 21,
1984,
as indicated on notices of non—compliance submitted
to the
Agency;
and
(3)
grab samples collected and analyzed by the Agency
indicated that the City of Salem’s WWTP discharged effluent in
excess of five times the numerical standard set forth in 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 304.120(c)
on at least 13 specified dates between
February 23, 1981 and June 20,
1984.
(Stip.
5—9).
The Respondent’s collection system consists of separate
sanitary and storm sewers.
Nonetheless, during periods of wet
weather (especially during heavy rainfall),
the City of Salem’s
sanitary sewer system suffers from inflow and infiltration problems
which result in various overflows occurring throughout the system.
(Stip.
9).
Although accurate flow measurements have not been
made because of the lack of an appropriate flow measuring device,
the estimated peak flow rate to the Respondent’s WWTP are probably
in
the
range
of
five
to
ten
million
of gallons per day.
(Stip.
9). The Respondent’s wastewater treatment facility has experienced
some washouts of solids from the aeration tanks and clarifiers
—4—
when
its WWTP’s hydraulic capacity is exceeded during wet weather
periods, which,
if not bypassed, have a tendency to clog the
tertiary sand filter,
These problems, which have persisted since
1975, resulted in the prior enforcement action in PCB 78—137 and
still have not been corrected.
(Stip.
9),
Although the City of Salem has continually encountered
serious bypass problems,
it has not expeditously proceeded to
upgrade its wastewater treatment facilities to properly handle
anticipated heavy rain water flows,
Instead, the
Respondent
has
filed two variance petitions before the Board in PCB 78—167 and
PCB
82—64,
neither of which has resulted in the granting of a
variance to the City of Salem,
While the City of Salem’s wastewater
treatment plant was upgraded in 1975 and became operational
in
January of 1976, the Agency has indicated that it “is still
withholding
final grant payment for this upgraded facility due
to,
inter alia, deficiencies in the final ~larifiers,”
(Stip.
10).
The Agency has also noted that,
in t~spectto the City
of
Salem’s commitment to the prior stipulated settlement in the
enforcement action in PCB 78—137,
the City of Salem
“has not
completed
its interim report in a timely fashion” pursuant to the
Board’s Order in that case,
(See:
IEPA v,C~~fS~alem,PCB
78—137,
40 PCB 111, Opinion and Order of December 18,
1980.)
Pursuant to the compliance schedule delineated
in the prior
Stipulated Settlement in PCB 78—137,
the City of Salem was required
to provide an interim report to the Agency pertaining
to testing
and a physical survey within 120 days of its Step
I grant amendment
approval.
(Stip.
10).
Because the United States Environmental
Protection Agency
(USEPA)
issued the grant amendment on February
26, 1981, the City of Salem was required to produce the interim
report within 120 days
(i.e., on, or before, July
27,
1981).
Instead, the City of Salem submitted its interim report to the
Agency’s Grant Section 229 days later
(i.e.,
on March
16,
1982),
Moreover, the Agency’s Grant Section found this interim report to
be both inadequate and incomplete.
(Stip.
10),
Because of the City of Salem’s significant sewage treatment
system deficiencies, the Agency has decided to allow the Respondent
to install
a temporary bypass at the primary tank effluent line
which will bypass excess storm water flow during heavy rainfall
in the wet weather months,
When the effluent flow rate reaches
1.6 million gallons per day, this bypassing may be initiated and
will
be monitored pursuant to the requirements set forth in the
City of Salem’s NPDES Permit No,
IL 0023264.
(Stip.
11),
On
January 17,
1979, the City of Salem applied for renewal of this
NPDES Permit and the Agency has indicated that it intends to
issue a revised NPDES Permit to the Respondent in the near future.
(Stip.
2).
Additionally,
the parties have developed a
long—range
plan
for expanding, modifying,
and upgrading the City of
Salem’s
wastewater treatment facilities to enable the City to come into
compliance with all applicable Board regulations and the Act in
—5—
accordance
with a specified compliance schedule,
(See:
Schedule
A
on pages
14—15
of the Stipulation in PCB 83-5.)
The parties
anticipate that this upgrading project will be completed by
December
of 1987.
(Stip.
11),
When construction begins (i.e.,
the anticipated date of the initiation of construction
is August,
1986),
the
City of Salem shall provide the Agency with quarterly
construction reports on the progress that is being made.
If
it
appears that the City of Salem may be unable to complete any
steps set forth
in Schedule A within the time period indicated,
the City
is obligated to:
(I)
immediately notify the Agency
in
writing about the delay;
(2)
clearly state the reasons for the
delay; and
(3)
indicate the steps to be taken to enable the City
of Salem to comply with the schedule
in the future,
(Stip.
11).
The City of Salem has agreed to comply with Schedule A and the
provisions of the Stipulation
in PCB 83—5 whether or not
it
obtains grant
funds to help finance its activities.
(Stip.
11),
The City of ~lem’s
obligation to meet any requirement set
forth
in the Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement filed on
August
23,
1984 is
subject to a force ~
clause which excuses
compliance “to the extent caused by the public enemy, fire,
explosion,
flood,
-tornado, earthquake, lightning~riot, sabotage
or war, or any other circumstances agreed to in writing by the
parties.”
(Stip,
12),
If this force ~~j~re
clause is activated
by any of the previously mentioned events, the parties have
indicated that they will “stipulate to a reasonable extension of
time for achieving the requirements of the agreement,”
(Stip.
12).
Moreover, the parties have stipulated that either party may
submit the matter to the Board for resolution “should the parties
fail to agree on what circumstances shall excuse a delay
in
performance or on the period of extension because of such excuse,”
(Stip.
12).
Accordingly, the Board will retain jurisdiction
in
this matter for three years, for the purpose of resolving any
disputes arising from the Stipulation’s force
jre
clause,
The proposed settlement agreement provides that the City of
Salem admits the violations alleged in the Complaint and agrees
to:
(1)
follow a specified compliance plan and schedule to
correct its environmental problems by upgrading its wastewater
treatment facilities, and
(2) pay a stipulated penalty of $5,000
in two installments of $2,500 each into the Environmental Pro-
tection Trust Fund.
(Stip. 1—15),
In evaluating this enforcement action and proposed settlement
agreement,
the
Board has taken into consideration all the facts
and circumstances
in light of the specific criteria delineated
in
Section
33(c)
of
the Act and finds the settlement agreement
acceptable
under 35
Ill. Adm, Code 103.180.
The
Board finds that the Respndent, the City of Salem, has
violated
35
Ill. Adm, Code 304,120(c),
35
Ill, Adm,
Code 309.102,
and
Section
12(a)
and 12(f) of the Act.
The Respondent will be
—6—
ordered to
follow
the agreed—upon compliance plan and schedule to
remedy
its environmental problems and to pay the stipulated
penalty
of
$5,000
in two equal
installments,
This
Opinion
constitutes the Board’s
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of law in this matter,
ORDER
It is the
Order of the Illinois Pollution
Control
Board
that:
1.
The Respondent,
the City of Salem,
has violated 35
Ill.
Adm,
Code 304.120(c),
35
Ill. Adm,
Code
309.102,
and
Sections
12(a) and 12(f)
of the Illinois Environmental
Protection
Act,
2.
Within 30 days of the date
of this Or~,,the Respondent
shall, by certified check or money ord~rpayable to the
State of Illinois and designated for deposit into the
Environmental Protection Trust Fund, pay the first
installment of $2,500
(on the total stipulated penalty
of $5,000)
which is to be sent to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
The remaining installment of $2,500
(on the total
stipulated penalty of $5,000)
shall be paid within 180
days thereafter,
Payment on the second installment of
$2,500
shall be paid in the same manner and fashion as
the first installment,
3.
The Respondent shall comply with all the terms and
conditions
of the Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement
filed
on
August 23, 1984, which is incorporated by
reference
as if
fully set forth herein,
4.
The Board shall retain jurisdication in this matter
for
three years,
IT IS SO ORDERED,
I,
Dorothy M.
Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted
on the
.L~
day of
~
1984 by a vote o~
Dorothy M,
Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Ri~198