ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

Marc~h 5,

1981

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

)

)

Corriplainant,

‘7.,

)

PCB 78—263

CITY OF EAST PEORIA,

)

a municipal corporation,

)

Re~ipond?~nt,

MR.

DOUGLAS

P..

KARP,

ASSISTANT

ATTORNEY

GENERAL,

APPEARED ON SEHAL~

OF

THE

COMPLAINANT.

MOEHLE,

REARDON, SMITH

& DAY, LTD., ATTORNEYS AT LAW (CHRISTINE

A.

~t3’r~,

OF

COUNSEL)r APPEARED ON BEHALF

OF

THE

RESPONDENT.

OPINION

AND

ORDER

OF

THE

BOARD

(by

N.E.Werner):

This

matter

comes

before

the

Board

on

the

October

13,

1978

Complaint brought. by

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(“Agency”).

Count

I

of the Complaint alleged that,

on

various

specified occasionE;,

the Respondent failed to monitor effluent

discharges

from its wastewa~ertreatment plant~s

storm

basin bypass

(002) in violation of

a condition in its NPDES Permit No,

IL

0028576,

Rule 901 of Chapter

3:

Water Pollution Control Regulations

(“Chapter

3”),

and Sections 12(a),

12(h),

and 12(f)

of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Act

(~‘Act”). Count

I also alleged that

the

Respondent failed to perform the necessary tests

for

fecal coliforrn,

BO1)5~ total suspended solids, chlorine residual

and

pH

as required

by its NPDES

Permit,

Count II alleged that the City of

East

Peoria

(“City”)

allowed

bypassing

of its

sanitary sewer system at a specified manhole and

other unauthorized points to a ditch tributary to

farm

Creek in

violation of Rule 901 of Chapter

3 and Sections 12(a),

12(b),

and

12(f)

of the Act.,

Count III alleged that the City improperly discharged sewage

from the storm water basin without chlorination

(Lea, the

sewage

did not receive a minimum of primary treatment

and disinfection)

in

violation of its NPDES

Permit, Rule ~01 of Chapter

3,

and

Sections

12(a), 12(h),

and 12(f) of the

Act.

41—5

---

—2—

Count IV

alleged

that effluent

discharged from the City’s stor”~

water

basin contained floating debris,

excessive floating solids,

and improper

color, odor and turbidity in

violation

of

the

limitatio~

contained in

its NPDES Permit,

Rules 403 and 901 of Chapter

3,

and

Sections

12(a),

12(b),

and 12(f) of the Act.

Count V

alleged that,

from April 21,

1976

until

October

13,

197~,

the City

operated its sewage treatment

plant (“plant”) without a

properly

certified operator in

violation of Rule 1201 of Chapter

3

and

Section 12(e)

of the

Act.,

Count VI alleged that the Respondent

had

no available auxiliary

power

or alarm system

at

the lift stations

of

the

plant’s sewer

systen

in

Vie!

ti

a

~

~ts NDDES

Permit, Rules

601(a) and 901 of

Chapter

3,

and Sections 12(a),

12(b),

and 12(f)

of the Act,

Count VII alleged that,

for

a relatively

short time period, the

facilityis

secondary effluent pump was not operating and

all plant

flow

was going through the storm water basin

and that this improper

discharge

violated its NPDES

Permit,

Rule

901 of Chapter

3,

and

Sections

12(a),

12(b),

and 12(f)

of the Act,

On October 24~, 1978,

the City

filed a Motion to Dismiss the

Complaint.

On November 1,

1978,

the Agency

filed

a

Motion for Leave

to

File an Amended Complaint,

Instanter,

and an Affidavit.

The

Amended

Complaint

updated the

original Complaint and added an

eighth

count

which alleged that the City

violated Rules 401 and 405

of

Chapter 3,

On November 2,

1978,

the Board granted the

Agency’s

motion

arid dismissed the City~sMotion to Dismiss the original

Complaint as moot,

On November

8,

1978,

the City filed a Motion to Dismiss the

Amended Complaint.

However,

on November

16,

1978,

the Board denied

the City~a

Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint~ After extensiv~

discovery occurrmi,

a hearing was held on November

25,

1980.

The

parties

filed

a

Stipulation

and Proposal for Settlement

on

December

22,

1980,

The City

of

East

Peoria owns and operates a sewage treatment

plant

located user

the

intersection

of

Cass

Street and Spencer Street

in

Tazewell

County,

Illinois

which discharges effluent directly into

the Illinois

River

from

the plant~ssecondary effluent outfall

(001)

pursuant to

NPOES

Permit

No.

IL 0028576,

(Stip~ 2).

Additionally,

the

Cl.ty

“is

also

permitted

to

discharge

excess

flow beyond the

capacity

of

raw

sewage

pumps from

its

storm basin bypass

(002).”

(Stip. 2)~ The

effluent

that

is

discharged from this storm basin

bypass

“is

conveyed

by

a

d~teh to

a levy

(sic)

district

pump

statthn

and from

there

to

the

Illinois River”.

(Stip.

2).

The plant, which

is currently

designed for an average

flow of about 2,5 million gallons

per day

(“MGD”)

and

a

peak flow of

approximately 5.8 MCD,

“utilizes

an

activated

~iudge

process,

a storm water basin for treatment

of

excess

flow,

and

chlorination”,

(Stip,

2).

The

treatment

components

of the

City’s

facility “currently consist of a inlet structure

bypass

41—6

---

—3—

pump statior

net

inlet bar screen, pumping equipment, primary

clarifiers, trn~campletely mixed activated sludge plants, storm water

basin, anercã to ‘~gesters,sludge drying beds, secondary effl~nt

chlorin4tio.t c.’~~Lties,

and

mechanical sludge dewatering facfltties.’

(Stip

2).

While U.n .‘‘yondent neither admitted nor denied most allegattonu

charged

in

the

i..

plaint,

the

parties

have

stipulated

that

the

City

‘did

not

mc,nlra

c~rfecal coliform, BODE, Total

Suspended

Solids,

chlorjne rcnId

t~

~

‘nd

PR

five

times

a

week

during

the

months

of

April 1978

;n~l

Pt’

1978’.

(Stip. 5).

Because of these admissions

by

tt

Ros!w~

1’:’t,

tac Agency contends that the City was in violation

of

it

NT.’ut; tc

‘4.

,

Rule 901 of chapter 3, and Sections 12(a),

12(b)) and

t.

,,~

tY

the

Act.

*~dition~.

li’s. the parties have stipulated that, from Ipril

21,

1976 Stil t1’

t

ing of the Amended Complaint, the City ‘had no

availtle w~.i’n,

power

or alarm system at the lift stations of

the fWilSt,y”~

~.

er system’.

(Stip.

6).

Accordingly, the Agency

conte4ls

that-

I’..

city thereby violated Rules 601(a)

and

901 of

thapt4r 3 and ~-‘a.ons12(a), 12(b), and 12(f) of the

Act.

It is al.~os .pulated ‘that on

May

9, 1978,

May

11, 1978,

and

other unspeciC -.c~ cates, the facility’s secondary effluent

pump

was

not operatin’j

:-.

i

all plant flow was going through the storm water

basin

(002).’

(5i..tp.

6).

Moreover, the parties have indicated that

the City fail~4

-.

notify the Agency vis—a—vis these improper

discharges.

(flLtp

6).

Thus, the

Agency

contends

that

the

City

was in violation

•

t its NPDES Permit, Rule 901 of Chapter 3, and

Sections 12(~).12(o), and 12(f) of the

Act.

The pa:tic.E1

i

~ve

also

stipulated

that:

.

about December

7, 1979, the City of East Peoria

fisM at

Amen.led

Petition of Variance from Rules 501(c),

flul(a,,

nd 602(b), of chapter 3 (Water Regulations).

The

Bo’.r.l :‘rited the City a variance from Rules 501(c),

601~:j,and 602(b) of the Water Regulations regarding

sew~ta

“tem

overflows until March

1, 1981, subject to

ccrta .n

conditions...

On or at nit

May

18, 1980, the City of East Peoria filed

at.

As rjed Petition of Variance from Rule 404(c) of the

W~u.cr

1 gulations to allow the City to discharge treated

eflluort

containing BOD

and

Suspended

Solids to outfall

(102

at

£he same effluent standards as currently specified

in

rae

LPDES Permit for outfall 001 during periods of

of

i~L’’tpump

failure until such time as the Facilities

r

1~r.

Is

~~rovementsare constructed under the Grants

Projra’

41—7

---

-4

v (I/I) study was conducted on the

~ t-r from 1976 to 1977.

Tho atw1y

-

vi

t

filtration and inflow results in

T

th~?lant and frequent

ovor4!loww

t

L~

t’s

..ewer

systems...

c

c.

grant

funds

is

937.

It

a.

.~

1.3

tot

construntion

grant

fu‘~s

•

.is.

6

7).

t rrwides that the City shalt;

n~ t

upgrade its plant

(as

ttin

3~4.

(2) during the intetba

u

•

u9grading

of

the

plant

and

sewer

‘y

rr ade

its

sewer

system,

pumps,

•

‘)lant,

chlorination

equipment,

i

out±all002),

•

...atoT employment, and genoral

1r

stipulated penalty of $2,000.00

t.

z~

ion

inn proposed settlement

a

•ct~

co.stderation

all

the

facts

and

.3

di.. cl3teria delineated

irt

s:trs the stipulated agreement.

J

1 am Section 33(c) of the Act.

•

t1.

City of East Peoria, has

03

405, C01(a),

qoi,

and

t201

V

,

112 f)ofthekct.

The

.-

s.~e°sedtqainst the

Respondc’ t.

•

cina..ngs

of

fact

and

It

1.

n

i.,

Pc~ll’ionControl Board that:

C

L~. Peoria, “as violated

,

~p

iI~,. of

,.hopter 3:

Water

~al

a)

.rre

1.2

a), 12(b),

awl 12(f)

1.

•

i

t.,n

Acc.

--

£

•fls

Order,

the City of

a

•~

~

~.r

money

order payable to the

~ila.°dpenalty of $2,000.00 which is

it

Pt

it.

I.

a

~:1:.

I.’

f.

Thej•

$

(1)

takc.

rijuisiti.

C.

period

(t

system’)

prinary

o1~

sludge

t~.

reportiny

equipment

i

(Stip. 8-:4

In

O~

agreement

circunbtat

Section

34

acceptable’

The

Board

.

violated

.&

of

stipulat’’

This

conclusior

1.

1

Rules

40t.

I

Pollution

of the Il.

.

2.

a,

~ast

State

ot

f

to

be

sot

I

.rv. ronrental

Protection

Agencj

r

tee.

Division

-

.‘cu~

Rc.ad

‘slinois

62706

---

—5—

3.

The Respondent shall comply

with

all

the terms

arid

conditions of the Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement:

di.led

~ecei~iber

22,

1980, which is incorporated by reference

a:3

if

tul)y

~et forth herein.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

~oard,

hereby

certify

that

th

above

Opinion

and

Order

were

adopte4~

on

~he

~~‘__day

of

t))

—,

1981

by

a

vote

of

~

Christan

L.

Mo

e

,

ler~

Illinois

Pollution

ontrol

Board

41—9