ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March 21, 1984

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Complainant,

)

PCB 83—177

v.

)

PRAIRIE VISTA,

INC.,

a

)

Delaware corporation,

)

Respondent.

MR. ALLEN SAMELSON, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON

BEHALF

OF THE COMPLAINANT.

HAYS,

SCHNEIDER, HAMMER & MILES

(MR. FRANK MILES, OF COUNSEL)

APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by W.

J.

Nega):

This matter comes before the Board upon a November 28,

1983

Complaint filed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency) which alleged that, on May 5,

1983 and May

6,

1983,

the

Respondent improperly allowed the discharge of effluent from its

wastewater treatment lagoon into the Sangamon River without NPDES

Permit authorization in violation of 35 Iii. Mm.

code 304,141(b);

35 Ill, Mm. Code 309.102; and Sections 12(a) and 12(f)

of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Act

(Act).

A hearing was

held

on January 13, 1984.

The parties filed

a Stipulation and Proposal

for Settlement on January 26,

1984.

The Respondent,

Prairie Vista,

Inc.

(Prairie Vista), owns

and operates a wastewater treatment facility serving

a mobile

home park known as River Oaks Village which is located about

3

miles east of the C:Lty of Springfield

in Sangamon County.

There

are 310

spaces for

mobile homes

in the River Oaks Village mobile

home park.

On

January 28,

1972,

the

Agency issued Permit #1972—GA—uS

to Prairie Vista which authorized the Respondent to own and oper-

ate a 3—cell

(in series)

aerated lagoon,

a final settling tank

with addition of chemicals, and chlorination of effluent designed

to serve a population equivalent of 999 in the River Oaks Village

mobile home park with discharge to the Sangamon River.

(Stip,

2;

see:

Exhibit A).

57-193

---

By February 15,

1973, Prairie Vista completed the installa~-

tion of its 3~cellaerated lagoon system which was then serving a

population of about

174 persons.

The surface area of cell

#1 was

1.18 acres,

while the surface area of cell #2 was 0.5 acres and

the surface area of cell

#3 was 0.1 acres.

These

3 cells are

separated by wooden partitions,

Aeration is accomplished via

2

blowers housed in a small building which provide aeration through

diffusion lines to the first

2 cells and the inlet portion of

cell

#3, while an air lift return line recycles sludge from the

inactive

zone of cell

#3 to cell

#1 near the influent discharge

line.

(Stip.

2—3).

The aerated lagoon

has a normal

operating

depth of

10 feet.

Although the Agency—approved

plans and

specifications

provided for the installation of

equipment

to provide final

settling with chemical addition and effluent chlorination, Prairie

Vista did not complete the construction of such equipment.

The

Respondent installed

3 concrete tanks to provide detention time

for chlorine contact, but failed to install:

(1)

a final set-

tling tank (into which alum would be fed for coagulation);

(2)

a

building which would house a coagulant feeder and a chlorine

feeder; and

(3) the necessary chemical

feed equipment.

(Stip.

3),

On December

2,

1981,

the Agency issued Permit No,

1981—GB—2968

to Prairie Vista

for the construction of additions to the Respon-

dent’s wastewater treatment facilities serving River Oaks Village.

An effluent pump stantion,

a dosing pump station,

a chlorination

tank,

a sampling manhole, and two intermittent sand filters were

included as authorized additions to Prairie Vista’s facilities.

(Stip.

3;

see:

Exhibit B).

On April

1,

1982,

the Board entered an Opinion and Order in

PCB 82—37 which granted Prairie Vista,

Inc. d/b/a River Oaks

Village Mobile Home Park a provisional variance until May

7,

1982

from the BOD

and suspended solids limitations of Rule 404(a)

of

Chapter

3:

Lter Pollution Regulations to allow the level of

wastewater in the lagoon serving River Oaks Village to be lowered

to avoid the danger of the lagoon berms giving way and releasing

the entire lagoon contents into the Sangamon River,

(See:

Exhibits C

&

D),

Condition 2 of the Board’s Order in PCB 82—37

provided that the Respondent should “construct the treatment

plant additions for which a permit was issued by the Agency on

December 2,

1981”

as expeditiously as weather permits.

(Exhibit

D).

Condition 4 of the Board~sOrder in PCB 82—37 mandated that

the Respondent “take at least one 24—hour composite sample of the

effluent discharge when drawing down” and report the results of

the analysis of the sample to the Agency within 10 days after the

sample was obtained,

(Exhibit D).

Between April

5,

1982 and April

13, 1982,

the Respondent

lowered the lagoon

level about

4 feet by conducting pumping

57-194

---

operations

I~t

i

i

~agle

effluent sample containing

13

equal efflsent ~tst

as collected over a 6—day period, the

Agency has

~

ha

tre allowable holding time for such sample

was exceedee -~n3

iy~rsresults for the sample were ever

submitted

to t

Ajenc

(

tip.

5),

During

ti~.

tire pe~odfrom August

6,

1982 until March 15,

1983,

the hesp rler~ ~g

Ic construction work on its waste—

water treatient

face

y wti h was authorized by Agency Permit

No.

1981—GB—2968

~ r~construction work began with earthmoving

equipment shaping

e site a~dincluded the building of the berm

and

allowing

he excr a~ir to settle

(which provided the requi-

site compaction

for the installation of the proposed intermediate

sand fil~ers’

‘~‘~

~Li~o i~

1,83,

the Respondent poured the

concrete footings

for t~esand filters.

(Stip,

5),

About

3½

weeks

“verbally ~egt~

~d

lower the lag

o

e

ponds”

i~

o dec

1

Sangamor

hive

~lco

lagoon

erri

between

Inc

~a

~r

Sangarnar

9

~

a

to

2

feeL

ol

believe~

tirt

giving s~ay.

p

know that

p

would seed

t

indicated ~

a

sional

~i

a

ably tecommeic

5—6).

Accord r

authorization

t

treatmen

lao a

ter

on April

11,

1983,

Prairie Vista

e.

~s or

from the EPA field personnel to

~y ourping the water into on-site holding

a

t

the situation brought about by the

~

ban s and reaching the toe of the

~acausc the difference

ii

elevation

i~

~re lagoon and the water in the

e

a.t

that

time

(wIth

about

1¼feet

r

rg

in

the

lagoon),

Prairie

Vista

g

g

so

reeded

to

keep

the

berms

from

er,

the

Agency

let

the

Respondent

r~a

ion

for

such

pumping

activities

~r

provisional

variance,

TIe

Agency

f

the

firm

applied

for

a

provi-

a

livity,

the

Ageny

woild

prob-

a

d

deny

the

requested

relief,

(Stip.

ra~

~ie

ista

did

not

apply

for

any

Board

t’

roe

of

effluent

from

its

wastewater

~aoar

r.

River,

(Stip.

6),

On

flay 6

i$3

~i.

1~c~

~y conducted an inspection of the

Respondent

r

a

ur ng this inspection, the Agency dis-

covered that

a

is

I about 2½”

in diameter and another

hose of abo~t ~

a

cornected to a submersible pump

were b~~i

ig

aec

i

a to discharge wastewater from its

3—cell aerated

~

c tIe ~angamon River.

Additionally, the

Agency

aspect

c~ano~hevsiphon hose of about 3” in

diameter wt~c

y~

~

the lagoon berm, but this hose

was not disc a gi

t~

Ito

Lirre of the Agency inspection,

(Stip,

6),

The waste

tot d~ h

~asdiscontinued on hay 6,

1983

after the Agen y

i

pc.

c~

‘i

r_rLed the Respondent’s employees

about the

eg

r~.r

the discharge,

but this unauthorized

discharge tad

LCC

S

runs ~.irceat least May 5,

1983,

(Stip.

6).

The Agercy ha~n

~

thrt the wastewater discharge, which

began

on,

or

r

a

i

83

arid continued on May

6,

1983

until

the

Ajer.~

spo~i~~s

discovered

it, occurred without the

requisite

NPDES

Pe:m

t asthorlzation and resulted in the lowering

of

the lagoon wc~tei 1eve

by aout

6 inches to 12 inches,

The

5 7~

195

---

—4—

Agency has calculated that, based on the surface area of the

lagoon, one inch of lagoon depth is equivalent to approximately

48,000 gallons of wastewater.

(Stip.

6).

Thus,

from 288,000

gallons to 576,000 gallons of wastewater were discharged during

the unauthorized lowering of the lagoon water level.

On May 26,

1983,

Prairie Vista resumed construction work on

its wastewater treatment facility additions.

(See:

Exhibit B).

On June

1,

1983, the Respondent completed construction of the

concrete walls for the intermittent sand filters.

Although

further work on construction additions was discontinued until

about June 29,

1983, piping installation in one of the sand

filters began on that date and sand was installed and leveled

in

the first sand filter by July 14,

1983.

(Stip.

6—7).

The proposed settlement agreement provides that the Respon-

dent agrees to:

(1) follow a specified completion schedule for

construction and installation pursuant to the plans and specifi-

cations approved under Agency Permit No. 1981—GB—2968 of the

second intermittent sand filter and associated equipment;

the

lift station and effluent pumping equipment;

and all other remain-

ing treatment equipment; and for fencing,

seeding, and final

grading of earth;

(2) pump the remaining contents of the aerated

lagoons to the temporary holding pond located to the east of

cells

#2 and #3 rather than to the intermittent sand filters to

expedite construction of the lift station

(subject to specified

water sampling conditions);

(3)

repair the

3 cells of the aerated

lagoon by fixing the diffusion lines for the aeration system and

repairing the lagoon baffling;

(4) comply with Agency—approved

interim monitoring requirements for discharges from the wastewater

treatment facilities serving River Oak Village;

and

(5) pay a

stipulated penalty of $500 which will be deposited into the

Environmental Protection Trust Fund.

(Stip. 7—11).

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 Respondent, Prairie Vista,

Inc.,

has violated 35 Ill. Mm. Code 304,141(b);

35

Ill.

Adm. Code

309.102; and Section 12(a) and

12(f)

of the Act.

The Respondent

will be ordered to follow the specified compliance plan and to

pay the stipulated penalty of $500.

This penalty is to be made payable to the Environmental

Protection Trust Fund

(Trust Fund), pursuant to the authority to

so order granted to the Board in Section 42(a) of the Act as

amended by P.A.

83—0618, effective September 19, 1983.

The

57-196

---

—5—

administer it was P.A.

81—951 effective January 1, 1980 and

codified as Ill. Rev.

Stat.

ch.

111½ 11061.

That legislation

provides in pertinent part that

“The Commission may accept, receive and administer..any

grants, gifts,

loans, or other funds***provided that

such monies shall be used only for the purposes for which

they are contributed and any balance remaining shall be

returned to the contributor,...”

The Board wishes to emphasize that it does not construe the

quoted portions of the Trust Fund Act as giving a potential right

of recovery for penalties ordered to be paid into the Trust Fund

pursuant to Section 42(a)

of the Environmental Protection Act.

When the Trust Fund was created, the legislature obviously envi-

sioned that the fund was to receive voluntary gifts

or contribu-

tions, to either be used for environmental purposes or to be

returned so as to avoid frustration of the intention of the

donor of the gift.

Payment of a penalty for violation of the Environmental

Protection Act is a compulsory, and not a voluntary, act.

There

is no right of recovery for a penalty paid into the general

revenue fund.

In allowing penalty monies to be paid into the

Trust Fund, the legislature has clearly implied that such penal-

ties may,

in essence, be earmarked for any appropriate environ-

mental purpose.

The Board concludes that to construe the Trust

Fund Act as implying a right of recovery for penalties deposited

into it runs counter to the intention of the Environmental Protec-

tion Act,

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board

that:

1.

The Respondent, Prairie Vista,

Inc., has violated 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 304.141(b);

35 Ill.

Adm. Code 309.102 and Sections

12(a)

and 12(f)

of

the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.

2.

Within 35 days of the date of the Order, the Respondent

shall, by certified check or money order payable to the State of

Illinois and designated for deposit into the Environmental Protec-

tion Trust Fund, pay the stipulated penalty of $500 which is to

57-197

---

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield,

Illinois 62706

3.

The Respondent shall comply with all the terms and

conditions of the Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement filed

on January 26, 1984, which is incorporated by reference

as

if

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan

L.

Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify that

the

above Opinion and Order

was adopted on the ~ /~tday of ~

,

1984 by

a vote of

—.

~

I

~

Christan

L.

Moffett,; ~erk

Illinois Pollution COntrol Board