ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 3, 1981
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 77—157
DECATUR SANITARY DISTRICT, A.E. STALE?
)
MANUFACTURING CO., and ARCHER-DANIELS-
)
MIDLAND COMPANY,
)
Respondents.
MR. REED W. NEUMAN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BE:iA~P
OF THE COMPLAINANT.
GREANIAS & BOOTH, ATTORNEYS AT LAW (MR. GUS T. GREANIAS, OF CO(JNSEI4,
APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by N.E.Werner):
This matter comes before the Board on the June 10, 1977 complain’-
brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”).
On August 18, 1978, the Agency filed a nine—count Amended Complaint.
Counts I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX of this Amended Complairtt.
contained allegations of violations by the Decatur Sanitary DistricL
(“District”).
Count II of the Amended Complaint contained allegations agai’-ist
the Archer—Daniels—Midland Company (“ADM”).
Count III of the Amended Complaint contained allegations agai~i.
the A. E. Staley Manufacturing Company (“Staley”).
After numerous preliminary legal papers were filed, a hearing
was held on January 21, 1980.
At this hearing of January 21, 1980, two separate settlement
proposals were presented. One settlement proposal was between the
Agency and ADM, the other proposed agreement was between the Agency
and Staley. Concomitantly, ADM and Staley moved for expedited
consideration of the allegations contained in Counts II and III of
the Amended Complaint, and requested that the counts of the Amended
Complaint pertaining solely to the Decatur Sanitary District be
43—24 1
—2—
considered in a separate proceeding.
There was no objection
to ~hi.s
procedure at the hearing, and the Hearing Officer submitted the
motions to the Board.
On February 4, 1980, the parties submitted two separate, signe~i
Settlement Proposals to the Board (i.e., the agreements between the
Agency and ADM, and between the Agency and Staley).
On March 6, 1980, the Board entered an Interim Opinion and Order
in this case which resolved all matters at issue between the Agency,
ADM, and Staley. A stipulated penalty of $3,000.00 was assessed
against each company for violating the Board’s Water Pollution
Regulations by discharging organic wastes from their grain mt1iin~j
and refining plants to sewers flowing to the Decatur Sanitary
District in such quantities as to cause overloads at the District’s
sewage treatment facility.
On June 22, 1981, a separate hearing was held pertaining S~)lOi’
to the allegations against the Decatur Sanitary District.
On June 30, 1981, a Stipulation and Proposal for Settle’nerit
between the Agency and the District was filed.
The allegations in the Amended Complaint pertaining to the
Decatur Sanitary District are encompassed in Count I and Counts IV
through IX of the Amended Complaint.
Count I of the Amended Complaint alleged that, from May 1, 1971
until August 18, 1978, the emission of odors from the District’s
sewage treatment and sludge disposal facility (the “plant” or
“facility”) interfered with the enjoyment of life and property by
nearby residents and caused air pollution in violation of
Section 9(a) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (“Act”).
Count IV alleged that, from March 1, 1977 until August 18, 1978
(including, but not limited to, April 27, 1977 and May 25, 1977),
the discharge from the District’s plant to an unnamed tributary an.1
then to the Sangamon River caused the dissolved oxygen levels in the
receiving stream to be less than 5.0 mg/l in violation of Rule 203L~)
of Chapter 3: Water Pollution Regulations (“Chapter 3”) and
Section 12(a) of the Act.
Count V alleged that, on at least 16 separate occasions betwa~n
May 1, 1977 and August 18, 1978, the District operated its facilitj
in such a manner as to emit gaseous matter into the atmosphere which
was injurious to property in that it “caused the exterior paint o~i
surrounding homes, garages, and other exposed surfaces to ~
crack, and peel”, thereby causing air pollution in violation of
Section 9(a) of the Act.
Count VI alleged that, since the month of ~1uly,1975, the
District has been treating flows in excess of design criteria
and has had, during specified months, organic loading populatioti
equivalents
(“P,E,”) greater than the 291,000 P.E. for
BOO5 and
total suspended
solids allowed by Permit #1973—DB—431, thereby
causing
water pollution in violation of Section 12
of
the Act.
Count
VII alleged that, from October
25, 1977 until August 18,
1978, the
Dist~rict caused the discharge
to
the
Sangamon River
from
its facility of effluent containing five-day biochemical oxygen
demand (“80D5”) in excess of the limitations set forth in its
NPDES Permit No, IL 0028321, thereby violating its NPDES Permit,
Rules 410(a) and 901 of Chapter 3, and Section 12(f) of the Act.
Count
VIII alleged that, from October 25,
1977 until August 18,
1978, the District allowed effluent discharges from its facility to
the Sangamon River which contained suspended solids in excess of the
limitations set forth in its NPDES Permit, thereby violating its
NPDES Permit, Rules 410(a) and 901 of Chapter 3 and Section 12(f)
of the Act.
Count IX alleged that, from October 25, 1977 until August 113,
1978, the Respondent allowed effluent
discharges from its plant into
the Sangamon River which contained
fecal coliform bacteria in exces:j
of permissible limits, thereby violating its NPDES Permit, Rules 4L0(~i)
and 901 of Chapter 3, and Section 12(f) of the Act.
The Decatur Sanitary District “services the City of Decatur
and
surrounding areas, a total service area of approximately 110,000
persons”. (Stip. 3). Renovation and expansion of the District’s
sewage treatment facilities began in 1972. At the present time,
about one—third of the plant’s waste is treated by a conventional
activated sludge process, and the remaining two—thirds of the flow
is treated by a UNOX pure oxygen activated sludge system. (Stip. 4).
The Dipper Lane sewage treatment plant is designed to receive
and treat a wastewater flow of 25 million gallons per day (“MGD”)
with an organic population equivalent of 291,000 P.E. (Stip. 4—5).
The plant currently has a design maximum flow of 50 MGD, and any
flows greater than the design maximum “receive primary sedimentatior
treatment and chlorination in a ditch lagoon before final discharge.
All effluents are discharged to Stevens Creek which flows into thc~
Sangamon River”. (Stip. 5).
Many operational problems were experienced after “the start—up
of the UNOX system in 1975”. (Stip. 5), In April, 1977, the quality
of the District’s effluent “became seriously degraded, causing
dissolved oxygen levels in the Sangamon River to fall below allowable
limits”. (Stip. 5), Additionally, “flows and loadings far in excess
of design criteria” have been experienced since July of 1975.
(Stip. 5—6).
On May 20, 1977, the Agency placed the District on restricted
status in an attempt to lessen the effluent and odor problems
caused by “a substantial increase in loading to the plant in the
period from November of 1976 to April of 1977”. (Stip. 6).
—4—
On December 29, 1977, the Agency removed the plant from
restricted status based on the District’s agreement to undertake
various corrective measures which would reduce the loadings to, or
below, design limits. (See: Stip. 6—7; Exhibits A, B, and C).
Unfortunately, this plant has had a history of many operational
problems due to “plant expansion and reconstruction operations”,
“major equipment malfunctions”, “unusual and severe weather
conditions”, and the “overloading of the plant by area industry”.
(Stip. 8).
The recurring odor problems have been aggravated by “the
proximity of the plant to neighboring residences and the prev3ilic~i
wind patterns”. (Stip. 7). For example, between May 26, 1977 and
June 13, 1977, “over 90 different citizens residing near the plant”
registered “over 100 separate complaints regarding odors and/or fucne~
from the plant”. (Stip. 7). Moreover, over 25 of these complaining
individuals stated “that fumes from the plant were so strong as to
cause exterior paint discoloration, cracking, and/or peeling at their
residences” as well as adversely affecting their daily lives by
causing great discomfort. (Stip. 7).
Similarly, during the time period from April 14, 1978 until
June 10, 1978, the Agency received over 25 separate complaints
pertaining to the plant odors from the District’s facility.
(Stip. 7—8).
It is also stipulated that, on numerous occasions between October,
1977 and July, 1978, the District’s plant effluent has frequently
exceeded the limits set forth for BOO5 and total suspended solids i.~
its NPDES Permit No. IL 0028321. (Stip. 8).
The parties have indicated that “the severe winter of 1977
delayed regular maintenance of the plant, particularly cleaning
of the UNOX system”. (Stip. 9). Additionally, in early 1977,
“heavy industrial overloading” caused the production of more solids
than usual and resulted in “mechanical malfunctions of sludge handling
equipment”. (Stip. 9). Thus, excessive levels of sludge solids
accumulated in the clarifier and polishing lagoons, thereby result~inq
in effluent and odor problems. (Stip. 9).
The parties have stipulated that odors emanated from many
different sources such as the clarifiers, the primary digester, an~
the “too—full polishing lagoons” in 1977 and 1978, (Stip. 9). it
is stipulated that “to some extent, chlorination has helped control
odor from the sludge lagoons” and “the District has in recent years
moved more aggressively to enforce contractual load limitations” on
“industrial waste loadings”. (Stip. 9).
The District is currently in the process of (1) further
upgrading its facility; (2) promptly developing an adequate sludga
management program; and (3) expeditiously cleaning out its tertiary
lagoons. (Stip. 9—10).
—5—
The proposed settlement agreement provides that the District
(1) admits the charges alleged against it in the Amended Complaint;
(2) agrees to cease and desist from further violations; (3) “agrees
to complete the process of cleaning out. the tertiary lagoons, in
accordance with Permit
#1980—SC-1634, by no later than December 31,
1981”; (4) “agrees to submit a sludge management program, as an
addendum to its Facilities Plan, to the Agency by no later than
August 31, 1981” and, (5) agrees to pay a stipulated penalty of
$1,000.00
.
(Stip. 10—11),
In evaluating this enforcement action and proposed settlement
a~jreement, the Board has taken into consideration all the facts an~
circumstances in light of the specific criteria delineated in
Section 33(c) of the Act, The Board finds the settlement agreem~iit
between the Decatur Sanitary District and the Agency acceptable
under Procedural Rule 331 and Section 33(c) of the Act,
The Board finds that the Respondent, the Decatur Sanitary
District, has violated its NPDES Permit, Rules 203(d), 410(a), and
901 of Chapter 3: Water Pollution Regulations, and Sections 9(a),
12, 12(a), and 12(f) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act,
The stipulated penalty of $1,000.00 will he assessed against the
Respondent.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact arid
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board that:
1.
The Respondent, the Decatur Sanitary District, has violated
its NPDES Permit, Rules 203(d), 410(a), and 901 of Chapter 3: Water
Pollution Regulations, and Sections 9(a), 12, 12(a), and 12(f) of
the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
2.
The Respondent shall cease and desist from further violations~
3,
Within 30 days of the date of this Order, the Respondent
shall, by certified check or money order payable to the State of
Illinois, pay the stipulated penalty of $1,000.00 which is to be
sent to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
4.
The Respondent shall comply with all the terms and
conditions of the Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement filed on
June
30, 1981,
which is incorporated by reference
as if fully set
forth
herein,
43—245
—6—
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order were adopted
on the 3~~_day of
~
1981
by a vote of 5~-~
Christan L. Moffett,
lerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
L~n—246