ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
January 8, 1981
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 79—78
CITY OF QUINCY, a municipal
)
corporation,
Respondent.
MR.
STEPHEN GROSSMARK, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED
Ot~I
BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT.
MR. ANTHONY B. CAMERON, ATTORNEY AT
LAW,
APPEARED ON BEHALF OF TIlE
RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by N.E,Werner):
This matter comes before the Board on the April 6, 1979
Complaint brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”). Count I of the Complaint alleged that, intermittently
from November 25, 1975 until January 15, 1979 (including, hut
not
limited to, September 11, 1978), the Respondent’s wastewater
treatment facility caused and/or allowed the discharge of collected
screenings, sludges, and other solids through a pipe leading from
the digester building to the primary clarifier outlet box, thereby
discharging effluent from the Quincy facility into the Mississippi
River in violation of its NPDES Permit No, IL 0030503, Rule 901 of
Chapter 3: Water Pollution Control Regulations (“Chapter 3”), and
Section 12(f) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (“Act”).
Count II alleged that, from November 25, 1975 until January 15,
1979, the City of Quincy (“City”) allowed the effluent from its
wastewater treatment plant to contain floating solids, visible foam,
settleable sludge solids, and floating debris and failed to notify
the Agency of such discharges in violation of its NPDES Permit,
Rules 403 and 901 of Chapter 3, and Section 12 of the Act,
On August 8, 1979, the City filed a Motion to Strike in its
entirety the Agency’s Complaint. On August 13, 1979, the Agency
filed an Objection to the Motion to Strike, On August 16, 1979,
the Agency filed a Motion for Leave to Amend its objection to the
motion to strike. On August 23, 1979, the Board entered an Order
denying the Respondent’s motion to dismiss this case. After
40—22 1
numerous discovery motions were filed, a hearing was held on
November 25, 1980. On December 11, 1980, the parties filed a
Statement of Stipulated Settlement.*
The Respondent operated a primary wastewater treatment facility
in Adams County, Illinois which provided primary treatment and
disinfection to the Respondent’s municipal sewage until January 15,
1979 when the City’s new secondary wastewater treatment facility
began operations. (Stip. 2). Although the old facility (the
“Quincy plant” or “plant”) is no longer in use, it is still owned
by the City and this case involves the operations and activities
at the older facility. (Stip. 2).
During the operations at the old Quincy plant, sewage came
from the City to the facility through a 36” and a 54” pipe. The
sewage then entered a diversion structure which was used to bypass
excess flow (i.e., wet weather flow which was above the plant’s
capacity). Sewage that was not bypassed was then conveyed via a
24” pipe to a bar screen in the control building where large pieces
of debris such as sticks and cloth were removed from the wastewater.
The sewage subsequently entered a wet well and was pumped to a grit
removal chamber. After small pieces of solids such as sand and
gravel were removed at the grit chamber, the wastewater then flowed
into a primary clarifier. (Stip. 2—3).
At this juncture, scum was skimmed off the top of the primary
clarifier, collected in a scum hopper, deposited in a scum well,
and pumped through the sludge line to anaerobic digesters. (Stip. 3)
Additionally, “wastewater from the primary clarifier passed over a
weir to the clarifier outlet box where it was measured for volume
and where chlorine was added for disinfection”. (Stip. 3). The
treated effluent then flowed through an outfall pipe (which served
as a mixing zone for the chlorine and the final effluent) “leading
from the outlet box to the Mississippi River”. (Stip. 3).
The primary sludge solids which settled to the bottom of the
primary clarifier were then pumped through a sludge line to one of
two heated anaerobic digesters. It is stipulated that during the
last two years of the Quincy plant’s operation, the heating and gas
collection systems of the two anaerobic digesters did not function
(i.e., the anaerobic digesters were “in a very poor state of
operation achieving only minimal volatile sludge solids reduction
efficiency”). (Stip. 3).
*Although the settlement agreement was not signed at the time of the
hearing, the substance of the Stipulation filed on December 11, 1980
was presented. The Board finds that Procedural Rule 331 has been
substantially complied with.
40—222
—
Before September, 1977, the sludge from the anaerobic digesbers
“was disposed of by running it through underground pipes to either
drying beds west of the plant or a sludge lagoon south of the plant”.
(Stip. 3—4). However, the drying beds were taken out of service in
the fall of 1975 when the Respondent began constructing its new
secondary wastewater treatment facility. (Stip. 4). Similarly,
the underground pipes (and other pipes) were removed
from service
in September, 1977. (Stip. 4).
Thus, the proper disposal of sludge from the anaerobic digest~rs
became a problem “in September of 1977, with the drying beds and the
underground pipes leading to the drying beds and the sludge lagoon
no longer available to the City for disposal of sludge from the
digesters.” (Stip. 4), However, as the parties have noted in their
settlement agreement, the City had various alternatives available to Lt
“Sludge could he disposed of in the sludge lagoon
south of the plant which an Agency inspector observed
was nearly full as of September, 1977. A mechanism
consisting of an above ground pipe could have been set up,
and indeed was from time to time, to transport sludge to
the lagoon. If the sludge lagoon became completely fulls
land was available at the site oE the old plant to
construct another sludge lagoon until the new wastewater
treatment plant was constructed with sufficient sludge
disposal capacity. The City also could have disposed of
the sludge at a permitted landfill.” (Stip, 4).
However, the City failed to follow any of these possible
alternatives, and instead the Respondent’s employees told the Agen~~y
that the City had “set up an above ground pipe leading from the
digesters to the sludge lagoon and that it regularly and routinely
disposed of the sludge by running it through the pipe to the sludge
lagoon from September of 1977 to September of 1978. The City further
maintained that the lagoon was of an adequate capacity to handle
sludge generated by the City~” (Stip. 4—5). Nevertheless, despite
its representations to the contrary, the City was, in fact, improperly
disposing of its sludge. (Stip. 5).
Moreover, the Agency inspection on September 11, 1978 and
discovery in this case revealed that:
“the City, through its employees, set up a 3 inch,
plastic white pipe leading from the digesters to the
clarifier outlet box. From September of 1977 to
February 26, 1978, the City, through its employees,
disposed of sludge every Thursday on the third shift
(10:00 P.M. to 6’OO A.M.) by sending the sludge from the
digesters through the plastic pipe to the clarifier outlet
box. From the clarifier outlet box the sludge would flow
through the plant outfall pipe and then to the Mississippi
River. From February 26, 1978 to September of 1978; sludge
was disposed of in the same manner but was done on Mondays
40—223
on the first shift (6:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M.), The City,
through its employees, disposed of sludge in this manner
with full knowledge that this was unlawful and that the
sludge should have been placed in the sludge lagoon or
disposed of in a way that would prevent it from coming into
contact with waters of the State of Illinois.” (Stip 5;
See: Exhibits B, C, D, and E and Photographs #1—#9).
The parties have stipulated that “the manner of operation
employed at the old plant for at least 12 months of its operation
had the potential of negating the purpose of even operating the
plant. Solids removed on a daily basis from the primary clarifier
were discharged back to the Mississippi River once each week in
slug loads. This practice has the potential of more serious
detrimental impact on the Mississippi River than would a daily
discharge of totally raw sewage.” (Stip. 6). Additionally, “the
Agency and the City agree that the investigation of this matter was
impeded by incorrect information transmitted from individuals
associated with the City before, during and after the Agency
inspection of September 11, 1978.” (Stip. 7). This necessitated
the taking of numerous depositions from City employees and
apparently unduly complicated matters.
It is also stipulated that the Respondent failed to “keep
records of sludge discharge from the old Quincy plant during at
least the last 16 months of operation”. (Stip. 8).
The proposed settlement agreement provides that the City
shall: (1) cease and desist from further violations of the Board’s
Water Pollution Control Regulations and the Act; (2) dispose of
sludge in a proper manner; (3) refrain from discharging sludge into
any Illinois waters; (4) keep accurate, detailed daily records on
the new wastewater treatment plant (including records of sludge
discharge in accord with Exhibit F of the Statement of Stipulated
Settlement); and (5) pay a stipulated penalty of $5,000.00
In evaluating this enforcement action and the proposed settle-
ment agreement, the Board has taken into consideration all the facts
and circumstances in light of the specific criteria delineated in
Section 33(c) of the Act. The Board finds the stipulated agreement
acceptable under Procedural Rule 331 and Section 33(c) of the Act.
The Board finds that the Respondent, the City of Quincy, has
violated Rules 403 and 901 of Chapter 3: Water Pollution Control
Regulations and Sections 12 and 12(f) of the Act. The Respondent
is hereby ordered to cease and desist from further violations and.
pay a stipulated penalty of $5,000.00
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
40—224
—5
ORDER
It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board that’
1. The Respondent, the City of Quincy, has violated Rules 403
and 901 of Chapter 3: Water Pollution Control Regulations and
Sections 12 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 $5,000.00 which is to he
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 Statement of Stipulated Settlement filed
December 11, 1980, which is incorporated by reference as if fully
set forth herein.
Dr. Satchell abstains.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order were adopted
on the ~
day of
_____________
,
1981 by a vote of
‘J—~.
Christan L. Moffe
,~
lerk
Illinois Pollution trol Board
40—225