ILLINOIS
    POLLUTION
    CONTROL BOARD
    April
    15,
    1982
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    )
    AGENCY,
    Complainant,
    PCB 79—127
    CITY OF MARQUETTE HEIGHTS,
    a municipal corporation,
    )
    Respondent.
    WILLIAM
    E.
    BLAKNEY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON
    BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT.
    WILLIAM F. MORRIS, TEPLITZ
    & MORRIS, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
    THE RESPONDENT.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by
    I.
    Goodman):
    This matter comes before the Board on the June 20,
    1979
    Complaint brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection
    Agency (Agency).
    The
    Complaint alleged that the Respondent,
    the
    City of Marquette Heights
    (City),
    improperly operated its
    municipal sewage treatment facility (facility)
    by exceeding
    the fecal
    coliforrn bacteria limits of
    its NPDES Permit and
    failing to:
    (1) provide auxiliary power at its two lift
    stations;
    (2) conduct routine maintenance on its flow meter;
    (3) monitor and report influent and effluent BODç and
    suspended solid levels;
    (4) monitor and record
    tife facility’s
    actual total
    flow;
    (5) submit discharge monitoring
    reports
    to the Agency after July,
    1978;
    (6) maintain adequate water
    sampling records; and
    (7) promptly notify the Agency about
    noncomplying discharges,
    in violation of
    Rules 401(c),
    405,
    501(c),
    502, 601(a),
    and 901 of Chapter
    3:
    Water Pollution
    Regulations
    (Chapter 3) and Sections 12(a)
    and 12(f)
    of the
    Illinois Environmental Protection Act
    (Act).
    The City did
    not file any responsive pleadings to the Complaint.
    Hearings
    were held on September
    2,
    1981; September 10,
    1981;
    and January
    18,
    1982,
    At the hearing of September
    2,
    1981, the Agency
    withdrew the prior allegations
    in the Complaint pertaining to
    violations of fecal
    coliform standards and failure to file
    discharge monitoring reports.
    (R.
    4-5),
    Although various
    witnesses testified during the hearings on September 2,
    1981
    and September 10,
    1981,
    the parties, at the close of the
    September 10, 1981 hearing, decided to negotiate a stipulated
    settlement and asked that the hearing be reconvened
    at a later
    46~8
    7

    —2--
    date.
    (R.
    237—239).
    At the hearing of January
    18,
    1982, the
    parties
    indicated that they had reached
    a mutually satisfactory
    agreement.
    The parties filed their Stipulation and Proposal for
    Settlement on January 18,
    1982.
    Since the settlement agreement
    is not inconsistent with the testimony, there
    is no reason why
    the Board should not therefore consider the Stipulation.
    The City owns and operates a sewage treatment plant
    in
    Tazewell County,
    Illinois which discharges effluent into the
    Illinois
    River pursuant to NPDES Permit No.
    1L0029777.
    The
    plant, which serves about
    3,200 persons, has a design average
    flow of 0.5 MGD.
    The Respondent’s sewage treatment system
    includes the plant itself,
    “seven drying beds with total square
    footage of 13,000 sq.
    ft., two lift stations, and separate
    sanitary sewers”.
    (Stip.
    1-2).
    Although the units designed
    and iristalled to provide secondary treatment have not been
    operated, the plant’s equipment includes
    “a comminutor/bar
    screen,
    a primary clarifier, an activated sludge unit,
    a
    secondary clarifier,
    an anerobic digester,
    and chlorination”.
    (Stip.
    2).
    It is stipulated that “the sewage treatment plant
    ~~iasconstructed in 1948 by a private developer who operated
    said system through 1963 when it was purchased by the City,
    at which time the City assumed operation of the plant”.
    (Stip.
    2).
    The City maintains that, because the private developer
    never operated any of the secondary treatment equipment, the
    equipment was, due to “prior non—use”, deteriorated and
    ineffective after 1963.
    (Stip.
    2).
    Nonetheless, the Agency
    placed the Respondent’s sewage treatment plant on restricted
    status on December
    6,
    1976, “for failure to provide secondary
    treatment or its equivalent”.
    (Stip.
    3).
    The parties have indicated that “the long term solution
    to city’s municipal sewage treatment problems lies in the
    completion and operation of the proposed Creve Coeur—Marquette
    Heights Regional Sewage Treatment Plant”.
    (Stip.
    5;
    see:
    IEPA
    v. Village of Creve Coeur,
    PCB 79-218,
    January
    8,
    1981).
    However,
    until such a regional treatment facility is completed,
    the
    parties have developed
    a detailed compliance program and schedule
    to alleviate the short term environmental problems which have
    been encountered.
    (Stip.
    5—9).
    The proposed settlement agreement provides that the City
    shall:
    (1)
    install the appropriate tees and valves
    at the
    force mains
    of its two lift stations to enable it to use the
    trailer mounted portable pump;
    (2)
    evaluate the effectiveness
    of its present chlorination system by taking effluent samples
    at the river outfall whenever possible, performing the necessary
    sampling and tests,
    and installing a diffuser
    in the primary
    tank for the purpose of chlorination,
    if necessary;
    (3)
    supply
    sufficient manpower to achieve proper operation, maintenance,
    and record keeping at the facility, including monthly flow
    meter calculations and all records required by its NPDES
    46—88

    —3—
    Permit;
    (4) begin to report raw influent test data by submit-
    ting a second discharge monitoring report form sheet;
    (5)
    take
    composite samples in a specified manner;
    (6) conduct a compre-
    hensive sludge management program; and
    (7)
    pay a stipulated
    penalty
    of $1,500.
    (Stip.
    5—10).
    The Board finds the settle-
    ment agreement acceptable under Procedural
    Rule 331
    arid Section
    33(c)
    of
    the Act and finds that the Respondent has violated
    Rules
    401(c),
    405,
    501(c),
    502,
    601(a),
    and 901 of Chapter
    3 and
    Sections 12(a) and 12(f)
    of the Act.
    The City will he ordered
    to pay the stipulated penalty of $1,500 to aid
    in the enforcement
    of the Act.
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings
    oi~
    fact and
    conclusions of law
    in this matter.
    ORDER
    1.
    The Respondent,
    the City of Marquette Heights, has
    violated Rules
    401(c),
    405,
    501(c),
    502,
    601(a),
    and 901 of
    Chapter
    3:
    Water Pollution Regulations and Sections 12(a)
    and 12(f) of the Illinois Environmental Protection
    Act.
    2.
    Within 45 days of the date of this Order, the City
    of Marquette Heights shall, by certified check or money order
    payable to the State of
    Illinois, pay the stipulated penalty
    of
    $1,500 which is to be sent to:
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    Fiscal Services Division
    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 18,
    1982, which is incorporated by reference
    as
    if fully set forth herein.
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED.
    I,
    Christan L.
    Moffett,
    Clerk
    of
    the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify that the abo e Opinion and Order
    were adopted q~
    theJ~±
    day
    of
    ______
    ,
    1982
    by a vote of ~.-O
    Christan
    L. Moffe
    Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    46—89

    Back to top