ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 18, 1980

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

)

Complainant,

)

v.

)

PCJ3

78—137

CITY

OF

SALEM,

Respondent.

MARY

E.

DRAKE AND VINCENT MORETH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL,

APPEARED ON BEHALF

OF COMPLAINANT.

ALFRED S.

PFAFF, MILLER, PFAFF & GAINER,

AND MICHAEL JONES APPEARED

ON BEHALF

OF

RESPONDENT.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J. Anderson):

This matter comes before the Board upon the

five count

amended Caiiplaint filed December 19,

1978

by the Illinois Envi-

ronmental Protection Agency (Agency) against the City of Salem

(Salem), alleging violations of the Environmental Protection Act

(Act) and of Chapter

3:

Water Pollution (Chapter 3).

At hearing

held March 14,

1980 the parties outlined a proposed stipulation

and settlement agreement which did not contain a stipulated penalty,

hut instead stated their intention to submit briefs concerning an

appropriate penalty.

However, the parties~ Statement

of Stipulated

Agreement filed April

9,

1980 contained a proposed stipulated

penalty of $2500.

By its Order of July 24, 1980 the Board

rejected

this stipulation because of failure to present the stipulated

penalty

at

hearing, and because of insufficient record information

concerning

the

size

of penalty..

At hearing held November 21,

1980,

the parties resubmitted their stipulation and

presented testimony

concerning the stipulated penalty of $2500.

The City of Salem, which is located in Marion County,

owns

and operates

a sewage treatment facility serving a population of

approximately seven thousand people.

Salem was notified by the

Agency on

or

about Noverrber 28-29,

1977,

December

8 and 15,

1977,

and February

8,

1978 that the facility was not being operated in

compliance

with the conditions of Salem’s NPDES permit.

Salem

admits

the

violations charged in the Agency’s original and amended

complaints

(Stip,

2—4).

These

admitted violations are’

40—111

---

1.

excursions beyond the permitted

30 day and

7 day arithmetic

mean quantities and concentrations of BOD5 and suspended solids

during each of the months between November,

1977 and September,

1978,

in

violation of Rules

410(a)

and 901

of Chapter

3 and of

Section 12(f)

of the Act

(Counts

I and II);

2.

excursions beyond the permitted geometric mean values

for fecal coliform bacteria during June, July,

and September,

1978 in violation of Rules 410(a)

and 901 of Chapter

3 and Section

12(f)

of the Act (Count III);

3. failure to monitor and report data concerning fecal

coliform bacteria during each of the months between and including

November, 1977 and May 1978 but excluding February,

1978 in vio-

lation of Rule 901 of Chapter

3 and Section 12(f) of the Act

(Count 4);

and

4,

failure

to maintain flows through the facility at or

below

the design maximum of 1.0 mgd for each of the months between and

including November, 1977 and September, 1978 exclusive of February

and July,

in violation of Rule 901

of Chapter

3 and

of Section 12

(f)

of the Act.

The proposed compliance program consists of an interim work

program and a long—range plan.

The interim program would require

Salem to a) take measures to reduce inflow into the sanitary

sewer

system, e.g. disconnection of downspouts and yard drains,

h)

seal

certain manholes subject to flooding,

c) employ sufficient numbers

of qualified persons to properly operate its plant,

and d)

install

a coarse bar

screen before the plant harminuter.

The long—range

plan

would

require

Salem

to

seek grant funding and then to expand,

upgrade, and modify its facility in accordance with a stipulated

schedule.

The anticipated date for completion of this project

and

for

full

compliance

with

water

pollution

rules

is

July

1,

1983

(Stip.

5-7 and Schedule

A).

In mitigation,

Salem states that the excursions and hea\ry

flows ranging from 14

to 300

above design capacity are

due to

improper design of the facility, which renders it inadequate to

handle increased flows during periods

of rainfall.

Following

rain-

falls,

the large

flows entering the facility wash the biological

solids necessary for Salem’s activated sludge process into the

receiving stream,

These washouts have

a double result~ the solids

themselves add

to the pollution load in the stream,

and loss of

the solids reduces the plant’s treatment efficiency,

causing the

effluent discharged during these periods to contain high levels

of pollutants.

Salem’s washout problems and resulting violations

have continued through the date of the parties’

settlement statement,

although Salem has been negotiating with the Agency since it filed

its first Complaint

(Stip 4).

However,

in justification of the

proposed stipulated penalty of $2500,

the Agency in argument points

out that Salem saved substantial amounts by non—compliance,

e.g.

salaries of

3 additional personnel at approximately $16,000 per

year each,

and approximately $3,000 annually for the interest it

would have had to pay holders of bonds issued to finance plant

improvements

(R.

4—5 of 11—21—80).

40—112

---

Having considered the facts and circumstances of this stipu-

lation in light of Section 33(c) of the Act and Procedural Rule

331,

the Board finds it to be acceptable.

The Board notes that

the

actions outlined in the interim compliance program were agreed

to have been completed in May through September,

1980,

and assumes

that such actions have been completed or extended by mutual

agreement under the fo~j~~

clause.

The Board will retain

jurisdiction in this matter for one year,

for the purpose of

resolving any disputes arising from the stipulation’s force

maj~e

clause.

This

Opinion

constitutes

the

Board’s

findings

of

fact

and

conclusions of law in this matter,

ORDER

1.

Respondent,

the

City

of

Salem,

is

hereby

found

to

have

violated Section 12(f)

of the Environmental Protection Act,

and

Rules

410(a) and 901 of Chapter 3:

Water Pollution.

2.

Respondent shall timely perform all actions agreed to in

the “Statement of Stipulated Settlement” which is incorporated by

reference herein as

if fully set forth.

3. Within 30 days of the date of this Order,

Respondent

shall,

by certified check or money order payable to the State of Illinois.

pay a stipulated penalty of $2500 which is to be

sent

to:

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

Fiscal Services Division

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield,

IL

62706

4.

The Board shall retain jurisdiction in this matter for

one year.

Mr.

Dumelle

concurred.

IT IS SO OPDERED.

I,

Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, here~ycertify th t the above Opinion and Order were adopted

on the

J~’~

day of

_____

,

1980 by a vote of ç/o.

J-/t~uI

Christan L. Mof~~~lerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

40—113