ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January 21, 1982
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 80-107
CITY OF MONMOUTH~a municipal
corporation,
Respondent.
MR. STEPHEN GROSSNARK, ASSISTANT
ATTORNEI GENERAL, APPEARED
ON
BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.
MR.
RONALD
C.
TENOLD,
STANDARD
& TENOLD, ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
THE
RESPONDENT.
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
D.
Anderson):
This
matter
comes
before
the
Board
upon
a
complaint
and
amended
complaint
filed
April
6,
1979
and
November
10,
1979
by
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(Agency)
naming
as Respondent the City of Nonmouth
(Moninouth).
The amended
complaint alleges
violations
of
Rules
403,
404(c),
901
and
1201
of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution
and
§~12(a)
and
12(f)
of
the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
in connection with
operation of a wastewater treatment plant known
as the “North
Plant”.
A public hearing was held at Monmouth on October 14,
1981 at which time the parties presented a statement of stipu-
lated settlement.
Members of the public attended the hearing
but did not comment
(R.
6).
This action was originally docketed as PCB
79-79.
On
May 15,
1980 the Board severed two
counts
from the four
count
amended complaint
(38 PCB 261).
Counts I
and
II of the amended
complaint were redocketed as PCB 80-107, this action.
Counts III
and
IV were decided September 18, 1980 as PCB 79—79.
Nonmouth
was assessed a penalty of $2,500 in connection with violations
involving operation of its
“municipal wastewater treatment
facility”.
PCB 80-107 concerns similar allegations involving
the “North Plant.”
Moninouth. has filed a related variance petition in PCB 79—249.
It requests a variance to allow operation during upgrading of
the North Plant.
These matters were consolidated for hearing.
The Board will incorporate the record in PC~79-249 by reference.
The facility description, compliance plan
and
variance will be
the subject of a separate Opinion and Order.
45—115
—2—
The North. Plant presently processes wastewater produced
by commercial and industrial facilities in and near Monxnouth,
principally
a very large slaughterhouse operated by Wilson
Foods Corporation, which is not a party to this action.
The
North Plant discharges to Markham Creek,
a tributary of Cedar
Creek, Henderson Creek and the Mississippi River,
From
April
25, 1975 through July 1,
1978 Monmouth discharged pur-
suant to NPDES Permit No,
IL 0036218~.
Count
I alleges:
discharge without an NPDES permit in
violati1n of §12(f)
of the Act and Rule 901; discharge of BOD
and TSS2 in excess of NPDES permit limitations of 10 and
12 mg/i
;
discharge of BOlD and TSS in violation of BOD and TSS
effluent standards of Rule 404
(C);
turbid, green discharge in
violation of Rule 403; and, a resulting violation of S12(a)
of
the Act.
Count II alleges:
failure to submit fecal coliform
monitoring results
as required by NPDES permit condition;
failure to use flow proportioned composite samples as required
by NPDES permit condition in violation of §12 of the Act; and,
operation without the correct classification of operator in
violation of Rule 1201.
Monmouth applied for NPDES permit reissuance on April
11,
1978,
but
no
permit had been issued through November 10, 1981.
The Agency alleges, and Monmouth does not deny, that it dis-
charged without an NPDES permit during this period in violation
of
§12(f)
of
the
Act and Rule 901.
Section 16 of the Administrative Procedure Act has been
held applicable to NPDES permits
(Borg-warner v. IEPA,
3rd
Dist., October
8, 1981).
This pro~i~1E
ermitS continue
in force where timely reapplication has been made.
Rule 902(i)
of Chapter
3 requires the renewal application to be made at
least 180 days prior to expiration; Monmouth filed its applica-
tion about
80 days before expiration.
Although the parties
have not addressed this issue, the Board assumes that this
is
1BOD is 5-day biochemical oxygen demand;
TSS is total
suspended solids.
2The complaint is not clear as to what Rule requires com-
pliance with NPDES limitations; Rule 410(a)
is not alleged.
Section 12(f)
and Rule 901 are alleged, although not precisely
in connection with NPDES limitations.
The Board construes the
complaint as alleging a violation of §12(f)
and Rule 901.
45—116
—3—
the reason why Nonmouth.
has
not denied it is in violation of
the requirement to obtain a permit.
Rule 902(i)
has been amended to delete the subparagraph
which absolutely prohibited reissuance where a facility was
not in compliance with conditions
of an expiring permit
(R79—13,
May 15,
1980,
38 PCB 341,
3 IlL
Reg,
No,
34,
p.
159, August 22,
1980).
The Board intended to allow
permit
reissuance in cases
such as this.
The Agency supported this amendment.
There is
no explanation as to why the permit has not been renewed in
this case.
In the variance matter the Board will order the
permit issued pursuant to Rule 914
of Chapter
3.
The Board finds Monmouth in violation of §12(f)
of the Act
and Rule 901 for failure to have
an NPDES permit for its dis-
charge between July 1, 1978 and November
10,
1981.
For the
reasons discussed above, the Board regards this
as
a technical
violation resulting only from the late application and not
meriting any substantial penalty.
Monmouth has admitted that it violated NPDES permit limita-
tions and Board standards of Rule 404 on many occasions between
October, 1977 and July, 1981.
These are summarized below,
The
levels were considerably in excess of standards and permit
conditions as
is set out in greater detail in connection with
the variance.
Parameter
Permit
Condition1’
2
Boar&
Standard
Daily
Average
Daily
Maximum
BOD
10
mg/i
25
mg/i
10
mg/i
TSS
12 mg/i
30 mg/i
12 mg/i
Monmouth has
also
admitted that from
October
1,
1977
through June 8,
1978 it has at times discharged a green, turbid
effluent in violation of Rule
403.
Monmouth has further admitted that it failed to submit fecal
coliform monitoring
results
from October
.1977 through August,
1978, or to use flow proportioned composite samples
as required
by NPDES permit.
Monmouth admits to violation of Rule 1201,
although there is no specific factual admission concerning
operation without the proper classification of operator.
1Rule 404(c); based on monthly averages
Rule
404(h).
2Daily Average
is the average of daily composites over a
30-day
period.
45—117
—4—
Based on the facts as set forth in the stipulation the
Board finds that Monmouth has violated Rules 403,
404(c), 901
and 1201 of Chapter 3 and §~l2(a)and 12(f)
of the Act, sub-
stantially as alleged in the complaint.
The Board recognizes
that certain of these violations are mutually
exclusive,
especially
the
findings
of
discharge
without
a
permit
at
the
same time as violations of permit conditions,
The Board has
found these violations in order to effectuate the intent of
the parties in the settlement agreement.
The parties have provided a compliance plan in the stipu-
lation and in the variance matter,
This will not be set forth
in detail in this Opinion,
Monmouth will be ordered to comply
with those variance conditions it has agreed to in the stipu-
lation.
These include the following:
1.
Interim effluent standards
(Paragraph 19);
2.
Three-year upgrading in accordance with Attachment A;
3.
Employment
of
an
operator
certified
both
as
an
industrial
operator
and
a
Class
1
operator;
4.
Operator
to
be
at
the
plant
5
1/2
days
per
week;
5.
Establishment of laboratory facilities;
6.
Overflow
structure
in
old
third
stage
cell
to
be
sealed;
7.
Sampling,
analysis
and
monitoring
in
conformance
with
state
and
federal
standards,
The
compliance
plan
in
this
enforcement
action
centers
on
BOD
and
TSS
problems.
The
plant’s
most
serious
problem
is
with
ammonia nitrogen.
However,
the
Agency
has
not
charged
Monmouth
with violation of Rules
402.1 and 203(f) with reference to
ammonia.
The
ammonia
compliance
plan
is
dealt with in the
variance petition.
The
parties apparently contemplated two different compliance
orders
in the variance and enforcement actions.
The
Board
has
combined
these
in
the variance order.
The
BOD/TSS
program
result-
ing from the enforcement action will be
a condition of the variance.
Compliance with these conditions will be ordered in this action.
The parties have stipulated to a civil penalty of $2,500.
They have stipulated that this is
an appropriate amount and that
it properly balances considerations which must be taken into
45—118
—5—
account
in
determining
civil
penalties.
They
have
agreed
that
it is tech.r~icallypractical and economically reasonable to
ensure compliance as set forth in the stipulation and amended
variance
petition.
The Board accepts the stipulation
and
penalty pursuant to
Procedural Rule 331.
The Board has considered the factors
enumerated in §33(c)
of the Act in reviewing the penalty and
compliance progr~r-,
This
Opinion
constitutes
the
Board’s
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law
in this matter,
ORDER
1.
Respondent, the City of Nonrnouth, has violated
Rules
403,
404(c)
,
901
and
1201
of
Chapter
3:
Water
Pollution,
and
§12
of
the
Act,
substantially
as
alleged
in
Counts
I
and
II
of
the
amended
complaint.
2.
Respondent shall comply with the terms and conditions
of the settlement agreement, which is hereby incorporated by
reference.
In particular,
Respondent
shall
comply
with
para-
graphs
5,
6 and
7 of the Order in PCB 79-249.
3.
Respondent
shall
comply
with
the
conditions
of
NPDES
Permit
No.
IL
0036218
from
the
date
it
is
reissued.
4.
Within
35
days
of
the
date
of
this
Order,
Respondent,
City
of
Monmouth
shall,
by
certified
check
or
money
order
payable
to
the
State
of
Illinois,
pay
a
civil
penalty
of
$2500
which
is
to
be
sent
to:
State
of
Illinois
Fiscal
Services
Division
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED,
I, Christan L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Pollution Control Board,
hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order were adopted this
~~3~day
of
,
1982 by a vote of
~
Christan
L.
o
tt, Clerk
Illinois
Pollu
ion
Control
Board
45—119