ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January 21, 1982
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
V.
)
PCB 81—130
VILLAGE OF TALLULA,
Respondent.
GWENDOLYN W. KLINGLER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON
BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT.
KNUPPEL, GROSBOLL, BECKER & TICE, ATTORNEYS AT LAW (MR. R. JOHN
ALVAREZ, OF COUNSEL), APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by N.E. Werner):
This matter comes before the Board on the August 12, 1981
Complaint brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”).
Count I
of the Complaint alleged that,
from May 16, 1979
until August
12, 1981,
the
Village of Tallula
(“Village”)
failed
to operate its wastewater treatment system (“system”) so as to:
(1) minimize violations
of
applicable standards; (2) produce as
high quality effluent as reasonably possible; and (3) minimize
discharges of excessive pollutants, in that the Respondent failed
to take necessary precautions,
make necessary
repairs, and provide
needed equipment in violation of the conditions of its NPDES
Permit, Rule 601(a) of Chapter 3: Water Pollution Regulations
(“Chapter 3”), and Section 12(f) of the Illinois Environiiental
Protection Act (“Act”).
Count II alleged that, intermittently from March 1, 1976
until August 12, 1981 (including, but not limited to, May 16,
1979 and March 28, 1980), the Respondent allowed the emission
into the atmosphere of odors which unreasonably interfered with
the enjoyment of life and property of nearby residents, causing
air pollution in violation of Section
9(a)
of the Act.
Count III alleged that,
by failing to submit the
requisite
annual discharge monitoring
reports, the
Village violated the
conditions of its NPDES Permit, Rules 501(a) and 501(c) of
Chapter 3,
and
Section
12(f) of the Act.
45—141
—2—
Count IV alleged that, from May 2, 1979 until May 21, 1981,
the Respondent operated its system without the necessary Class Iv
wastewater treatment operator to provide direct and active field
supervision over operations in violation of Rule 1201 of
Chapter 3 and Section 12(a) of the Act.
A hearing was held on December 8, 1981 at which one member
of the public, a member of the Village Board, was present. At
this hearing, a partially signed Stipulation and Proposal
for
Settlement (i.e., signed only by a representative of
the
Complainant), which was substantially identical to
the
sub—
sequently filed Stipulation, was incorporated into
the hearing
record. (R.11). The parties filed a properly signed Stipulation
and
Proposal for Settlement on December 17, 1981.
The Respondent, the Village of Tallula, owns and operates a
wastewater treatment system in Menard County, Illinois which
serves the Village residents and discharges contaminants into
Clarey Creek, a navigable Illinois water, pursuant to NPDES
Permit
#IL 0033359. (Stip.2). The Village’s wastewater
treatment system includes “three lift stations, a three-stage
aerated lagoon system, chlorination, and an effluent level
control structure”. (Stip.2).
The parties have stipulated that the Respondent: (1) did
not
submit the necessary discharge monitoring reports for vaciolis
specified time periods; (2) operated its treatment facility
in
such a manner as to produce odors (especially during the time
period between April, 1979 and August, 1979); (3) substantially
reduced odors from its system by making repairs on its wastewater
treatment facility, including the improvement of the lagoon’s
aeration system, before the Agency’s Complaint was filed; (4)
discharged unchlorinated effluent on March 28, 1980; September
24, 1980, and February 17, 1981 due to a faulty valve on the
effluent control structure; (5) failed to install locks to
prevent vandalism at its lift stations at North Yates Street,
West Main Street, and Bell Street (as noted during the Agency
inspection of February 17, 1981); and (6) subsequently installed
locks at the lift stations on West Main Street and Bell Street
(but failed to have a lock at the lift station at North Yates
Street), as observed at the Agency inspection on February 17,
1981. (Stip.3—6).
The Village has admitted that the violations alleged in
Counts I, II, and III of the Complaint did, in fact, occur,
but has denied the allegations in Count IV. (Stip.7). The
parties have stipulated that the Village employed a certified
operator for its wastewater treatment system from May 2, 1979
until May 21, 1981, but there appears to be some confusion
as to whether a revised contract between the Village and the
certified operator received the requisite Agency approval.
(Stip.5). Since it is stipulated that “no record of written
notice to Respondent concerning Agency action on this revised
contract has been located”, and since the current contract
with the same certified operator has already been approved by
the Agency, the Board will dismiss Count IV of the Complaint
as moot.
45—142
—3—
The proposed settlement agreement provides that the Village
agrees to: (1) cease
and desist from further violations; (2)
rlinimize odors by avoiding air leaks
and
clogged air slits in
the air blower system (and by striving to maintain the lagoon
aeration system in optimum working order); (3) promptly
repair all remaining air leaks in the aeration system and,
“while the aeration lagoon
is
pumped down for this
repair,
gas clean the
system’s air lines and mechanically clean any
clogged air slits”; (4) provide appropriate locks on
all
lift stations
as security against vandalism; (5) expeditiously
“replace the
four-inch sheer-gate
valve
in the effluent
structure
of the lagoon”; (6) maintain a sufficient supply
of spare light bulbs for each lift station; (7) submit the
requisite discharge monitoring reports, and (8) pay a stipulated
penalty of $300.00. (Stip.6—8).
In evaluating this enforcement action and proposed settlement
agreement, the Board has taken into consideration all the faces
and circumstances in light of the specific criteria delineated in
Section 33(c) of the Act. The Board finds the settlement acceptable
under Procedural Rule 331 and Section 33(c) of the Act.
Accordingly, the Board finds that the Respondent, the Village
of Tallula, has violated its NPDES Permit conditions, Rules 501(a),
501(c) and 601(a) of Chapter 3: Water Pollution Regulations,
and Sections 9(a) and 12(f) of the Illinois Environmental Prot~~~ctiori
Act. Count IV of the Complaint will be dismissed, The Respondent
will he ordered to follow the compliance program set forth in the
settlement agreement and pay a stipulated penalty of $300.00.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
that:
1. The Respondent, the Village of Tallula, has violated the
conditions of its NPDES Permit; Rules 501(a), 501(c)
and 601(a) of Chapter 3: Water Pollution Regulations,
and Sections 9(a) and 12(f) of the Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Act.
2. The Respondent shall cease and desist from further
violations.
3. Within
60 days of the date of this Order, the
Respondent
shall, by certified check
or
money order payable
to t~ie
State
of Illinois, pay the stipulated penalty of
$300.00 which is to be sent to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Ilinois 62706
45—143
—4—
4.
The Respondent shall comply with all the terms and
conditions of the Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement filed on December 17, 1981, which is
incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
herein.
5. Count IV of the Complaint is hereby dismissed.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that
t e above Opinion and Order
were adopted ,on the
j~~dayof
________________,
1982 by
a vote of
“1-~
_____
,
Christan L, Moffe4’? Clerk
Illinois Pollutioñ~ontrol Board