ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

July

21,

1982

ILLINOIS

ENVIRON~NTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Complainant,

V.

)

PCB 8l~l45

CITY

OF

CARROLLTON,

a

municipal corporation,

Respondent,

MS.

CHRISTINE

ZEMJ~N, ASSISTANT

ATTORr~EY

GENERAL, APPEARED ON

BEHALF OF COMPLAINAL’IT;

MR. HUGH A

STRICKLAND,

McDONALD,

STRICKLAND

&

CLOUGH,

APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT,

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE

BOARD

(by

D~

Anderson):

This

matter comes

before

the

Board

upon

a complaint filed

September

15,

1981

by

the

Illinois

Environmental Protection

Agency

(Agency)

naming

as

Respondent

the

City

of

Carroilton.

The

Complaint

alleges

violation

of

Sections

12(a)

and

12(f)

of the Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Act

(Act)

and

Rules

105, 203(a),

402,403,

501(c)

and

901

of

Chapter

3:

Water

Pollution.

These

violations

arise

out

of

operation

of

a

municipal wastewater

treatment

plant.

On

November 13,

1981

a public hearing was held

at

Carroilton.

There is no indica-

tion of public participation.

On October 19,

1981

the

Agency

filed a First Request for

Admission of Fact and Genuineness of

Documents.

The

truth of

the facts was

admitted

at the hearing

(R~7),

The Agency also

amended the Complaint

on

the record at the hearing

(R.4).

The amendments updated

the

Complaint

to

include

an

Agency

inspection

of

November

4,

1981~

The Carroilton plant

includes

the following:

a diversion

structure and septic tank for overflows; aerated grit chamber;

package

activated sludge plant; and,

an effluent

flow meter

(R.3l).

The

plant

has

a

design

flow

of

1.1

x

106

liters

per

day

(0.3 MGD) (Ex.5,

p.11).

It

discharges to Link

Branch,

a

tributary of

the

Illinois

River

via Macoupin Creek

(Ex.5).

Carroilton has

a

population

of 2866,

Carrollton was issued NPDES

Permit

No.

IL 0021679 by the

United States Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA)

on

47-405

---

July 31,

1977

(Rx,5)

itt v~asto cxpire or December 31, 1981.

There is no indicatror

that :~~riat

has been renewed,

Attached

to

the

permit

was

an

Cl

orcement

cornpiance

letter

with

more

relaxed

eff1uen~ 1ixr~tations

J?h’~ plant

was

required

to meet

4 mg/l for 5~daybiocre~nica1oxyger demand

(BOD)

and

5

mg/l

for

total

suapended

sojids

TSS)

on

a

30~-day

average.

The

compliance

letter

allowed

up

to

30

mg/l

for

each.

It

is

apparent

that

these

~evels

wer~ exceeded

by

a

huge

amount,

although

the Agency has not alleged these violations, relying

instead

on the conditions of Ittachment A ~nich prohibit

discharge

of floating solids

o

vrs~h1e foar

in other than

trace

amounts.

The following is a summary

f the allegations of the

Complaint:

Count

Summary

I

§12 (a)

and

(f)

Dis

harge

of

floating

solids

or

403,

901

vi~ib1e

foam

in

violation of

Board

rules

and

permit

conditions

II

§12(a)

Causing

unnatural

sludge or

203(a),

402

1

oata~ngdebris

in

Link

Branch

~

violation

of

Board

rules

III

§12(a)

and

(1)

Failure

to

sample

influent

as

50l(c~,

901

required

by

NPDES

condition

IV

§12(a)

and

(f

Failure

to

monitor

as

required

105,

501(c)

by

Board

rule

and

NPDES

permit

and

901

condItion

V

§l2(a

and

~f)

Failure

to

provide

optimum

901

mintenance

and

operation and

adequate

staff

as

required

by

NPDES

condition

Agency

inspectors

noted

a

colored

or

turbid discharge,

floating material and sludge depo

Ti.

~s do~~nstream

of the plant

on eight

instances

between

May

i9~9 and

November,

1981

(R,32,

35,

43,

49,

59,

64,

75

76,

79,

82,

Ex,7),

The plant

operator

admitted that he had observed an effluent dark in

color and

sludge

deposits

downstream

(R,l09),

The Board

finds

that

Respondent

has

violated

Sections

12(a)

and

12(f)

of

the

Act

and

Rules

203(a),

402k

403

and

901

of

Chapter 3,

substantially

as

alleged

in

Counts

I

and

IL.

(These rules

are

to

be

codified as Sections

302.203, 304,105, 304.106

and

309,102).

47-406

---

—3—

Agency inspections on May 10, 1979 and November 4,

1981

disclosed that influent sampling was not being conducted as

required by Attachment A, page

2 of the NPDES permit

(R.

61,

83).

This condition required monitoring of BOD, TSS and

ammonia at the point of entry into the plant.

This was to

be by a composite taken each month

(Ex.

5).

The Board finds

Respondent in violation of Section 12(f)

of the Act

and

Rule

501(c)

of Chapter

3

Section

305.102(c),

substantially as

alleged in Count III of the Complaint.

No violation of

Section 12(a)

or Rule 901 will be found because Section 12(f)

and

Rule 501(c)

address the conduct more specifically.

Counts

III, IV and V involve allegations of failure to

monitor as required

and

failure to provide optimum mainten-

ance

and

operation.

In some areas these violations overlap.

For example, the failure to properly measure flow is related

to the failure to properly calibrate the measuring equipment.

Rule 105 requires monitoring according to USEPA’s current

manual of practice or other procedures acceptable to USEPA and

the Agency.

Rule 501(c)

requires permittees to comply with

the monitoring, sampling and recording requirements in NPDES

permits.

Condition

3B of Attachment A requires analytical

and

sampling methods to conform with Standard Methods for

the Examination of Water

and

Wastewaters, 13th Edition,

1971,

or two other named publications, or equivalent methods pursuant

to prior written approval.

The plant operator admitted that he did not know what

the requirements for TSS

and

BOD sampling were

and

did not comply with them

(R.

97,

103,

105).

Agency inspections indicate that Carroliton actually

measures only flow and pH.

These are measured by unapproved

methods.

All other “monitoring”

is guesswork

(R.

45,

74,

104).

The

following

are

details

of

monitoring

deficiencies:

1.

pH

is

measured

by

a

“photometric

method”;

whereas,

use

of

a

pH

meter

is

(R.

74,

97).

2.

Flow

meters

require

annual

calibration;

whereas,

Carroilton’

s

was

calibrated

1974

and

1981

(R.

34,

63,

83,

47-407

---

—4—

3.

Carrollton

does.

not

have

equipment

to

perform

BOD

or

TSS

tests.

Thas.e

wer~e

once

done

by

the

in

a

nearby

town,

but

have

been

guessed

since

he

quit

(R.98).

4.

The

permit

requires

a

monthly

grab

sample

for

fecal

coliform

and

a monthly composite for ammonia.

details of this monitoring, or lack of it, are not

5.

Agency inspectors noted outdated analytical chemicals

at the facility (R.42).

There

are a number of tests which are not required by the

permit

but which are necessary to monitor conditions within

the treatment works to obtain optimum efficiency.

These

include a dissolved oxygen

(DO) meter to efficiently operate

the activated sludge process

(R.63,

78,

83).

Agency measure-

ments indicate inadequate DO levels in the process

(R. 78).

The following equipment necessary for monitoring or

1.

There is no pH meter

(R.42,

97).

2.

There is no DO

meter

(R.78).

There is no analytical balance necessary for BOD

and

TSS monitoring

(R.42,

45, 63, 83,

97,

124).

4.

Operation manuals are missing (R.70, 82, 104).

The following are failures in routine maintenance which

1.

Carroliton does not keep operating records of the

plant

(R.71,

81, 104).

2.

The lift pump used for pumping sludge from the

aerobic digester required cleaning

and

replacement

of parts

(R.67,

81, 115, 129).

Because of this

sludge recirculated in the system to be discharged

rather than be removed.

3.

The City. failed to recalibrate flow meters annually

from 1974 until 1981 (R.63,

83, 105).

4.

The sludge .lagoon was near overflow on September 5,

1979

and

to remove sludge from the plant

(R.32, 65, 77,

80,

47-408

---

—5—

5.

There

was

a

leak

in

the

septic

tank

on

September

5,

1979.

and

on

January

2,

1980

(R.32,

66,

77,

80,

120,

Ex.6A).

6.

The City failed to remove sludge from the septic

tank.

(R.96,

122,. 132).

7.

Clarifier effluent weir was cleaned on a weekly,

rather

than

a

daily,

basis

as

of

March

26,

1980

and

November 4,

1980

(R.68,

81, 96).

8.

Clarifier effluent weir was not level,

reducing

detention time and impairing effluent quality

(R.61,

65, 118, 134).

9.

Solenoid on

clarifier

skimmer

was

inoperative

on

June 12,

1980

(R.68,

118, 130).

10.

The City failed to replace broken diffusers

in

aerobic digester

and

reaeration

tank

(R.61,

69).

11.

The City failed to

clean diffusers(R.6l,

70,

80,

82, 119, 130).

12.

Inflow

coinminutor

was missing

(R.31,

36,

81, Ex.6C).

In

addition

to these items, there is

dispute

concerning

the blower motors.

Air is injected into the aeration tank by

electric blowers

(R.7l,

76,

78,

80).

This provides mixing

and

dissolved

oxygen

necessary

for

efficient

treatment.

Agency inspectors observed “dead spots” in the aeration tank

caused by inadequate mixing.

They measured residual DO

levels which were inadequate for treatment

(R. 70).

The

facility is equipped with two blowers; however, only a single

blower was in operation on March 26, 1980.

The operator

indicated that he was not allowed to operate both blowers

because of utility costs

(R.71).

On June 12,

1980 the operator indicated that he had been

operating both blowers two hours per day, but was not allowed

to operate the second blower continuously for more than two

hours because of operational problems with one blower and

because of utility expenses

(R. 76).

On July Il, 1980 the Agency performed process control

tests

with.

Agency equipment.

These

indicated the need for a

higher

level of aeration.

The

operator indicated that even

with the blower returned to continuous operation he would not

be allowed to run

it

for a long period of time because of

utility expense

(R.79,

47-409

---

—6—

Carrollton

believes

the

plant

was

designed

for

operation

of

only

a

single

blower

at

a

time,

with

the

second

intended

as

a

back—up.

It

was

necessary

to

rewire

the

plant

to

operate

both

motors simultaneously

(R.

107,

114, 117,

126, 127,

133).

Although it is possible that the plant was designed with inade-

quate aeration capacity, it was Carrollton’s responsibility to

assure adequate design, monitor performance

and upgrade if

necessary.

A more

likely explanation for the low DO lies in

inadequate maintenance of the plant, especially the blower

tubes and failure to remove sludge at proper intervals.

The

necessity of operating both blowers may stem from these defi-

ciencies.

The Board finds

that Carroll~onhas violated Sections

12(a)

and

12(f)

of the Act and Rules 501(c)

and 901 of Chapter

3:

Water Pollution

(codified as Sections

305,102(a)

and

309.102)

substantially

as

alleged

in

Counts

IV

and

V

of

the

Complaint.

Rule

105

(Section

301,104)

is

not a prohibition,

but

a

direction

to

the

Agency

in

writing

permits.

The

record

shows

that

the

Agency

notified

Carroilton

of

the

inadequate

reporting,

analytical

equipment

and

maintenance

as

early

as

March,

1977

(Ex.

1).

Repeated

notices

followed

through

the

time

span

alleged in the Complaint.

In many

instances Carroilton eventually remedied the deficiencies

(R.

118,

121).

The Agency contends that the operator has inadequate

training

and does not spend enough time

at the plant.

The

Agency

has

not

however

alleged

violation

of

the

operator

certification rules

(R.

54).

The

Agency

recommends

that

the

operator be present at this class of facility at least four

hours per day, five days per week, although this has not been

made a permit condition

(R.

38).

The operator spends

about

three hours per day at the plant and

has other duties away from

the plant

(R.

94).

The violation in Count V is based on the

general

evidence

of

neglect

noted

above,

and

not

on

time

spent

at

the

plant

by

the

operator.

Some

maintenance

tasks

require

several

men

(R.

120).

It

takes several weeks

or a month before Carroilton assigns man-

power to these tasks

(R. 132).

It is apparent that the City

doesn’t place a sufficiently high priority on sewage plant

maintenance.

As noted, the violations of the monitoring and maintenance

requirements

led

to

gross

pollution

involving

the

discharge

of

floating solids,

colored, malodorous water

and accumulation

of sludge banks downstream of the plant.

The Board regards

this

as a substantial injury to

and

interference with the pro-

tection of the health,

general welfare and physical property of

the people downstream Section

47-410

---

The treatment

plant~s

social

and

economic value is

reduced

by inadequate maintenance

and

operation in gross

disregard for permit conditions,

There is

no

question as to

suitability to the area

(Sections

33(c) (2)

and 33(c) (3)),

Carro11ton~sdefense rests largely on its financial diffi-

culties

(Resp.

Ex.

l)(R,133),

Although the Board recognizes

that

replacement

of

the

plant

without

grant

funding

may

be

at

the

limit

of

Carro.1iton~s

ability

to

pay,

the

gross non-

compliance

results

from

a

continuing

disregard

for

efficient

operation

practices and routine maintenance.

Many

of the

plant’s problems could have been

avoided

through

small

expenses

over

the

years.

The Board finds that it is technically prac-

ticable

and economically reasonable to reduce or eliminate

the offensive

discharges

and

deposits

~Section 33(c) (4)

of

the Act,

Although the Board recognizes that it will necessarily

reduce

the

resources available to remedy the situation, it

finds that a monetary penalty in

the

amount

of $4300

is

necessary to aid enforcement of

the

Act.

Carroliton will be

ordered

to

cease and

desist

these violations.

No

compliance

schedule

can

be ordered because there is inadequate evidence

in the record concerning what remedial measures must be under-

taken and

the

amount of time required for completion.

Carrollton

will be ordered to

meet

with the Agency within 60 days to

discuss compliance alternatives,

A variance petition may be

necessary if Carroilton

cannot

come into full compliance

immediately.

This Opinion

constitutes

the

Board’s

findings of fact and

conclusions of

law

in

this

matter~.

ORDER

1.

Respondent

the

City

of

Carrollton

has

violated

Sections

12(a)

and

.12(f)

of the Environmental

Protection Act and Rules

203(a), 402,

403, 501(c)

and

901

of Chapter 3:

Water Pollution.

2.

Within 90 days

of the date of this Order, Respondent

shall cease and desist further violations of Sec-

tion 12 of the Act

and

Rules 203(a)

,

402,

403,

501(c)

and 901 of Chapter

3:

Water Pollution (to

be codified as Sections 302.203,

304.105,

304.106,

305.102(c)

and 309.102).

3.

Within

60

days of the date of this Order, Respondent

shall meet with the Environmental Protection Agency

at a time

and

place to be set by the Agency in order

47-411

---

to

arrive

at

a p~orar~tor achi~vingcompliance

by

the

p

ait~

4.

Respondent shall, withii 35 day~of the date of

this Orde~

,

bj c~ ified c1~eckor money order

payable t

the ~3tateo

Illinois, pay a civil

penalty of $4300 wh~c’his to be sent to:

State of liii iois

Fis~alServi ‘es Division

liiilois Environrte

c~l

Protection Agency

2200 Churchi’l Road

f~v1rJtie~i,~3~’oi~a 62786

IT IS SO ORDBRED

Board Member Dune! e dtsented~

I, Christan

L. Moffett

Cleik of the Illinois Pollution

Control

Board, hereby cert fy that the above Opinion and

Order

were adopted on the ~J~~day

of

,

1982

by avote

of~~J.

/

/

1~’

Christen

L.

Moffett,

rk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

47~412