ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

February

19,

1981

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

)

)

Complainant,

)

v.

)

P~B79—184

)

CITY

OF

ROODHOUSE,

)

)

Respondent.

MR.

BRIAN

E.

REYNOLDS,

ASSISTANT

ATTORNEY

GENERAL,

APPEARED

ON

BEHALF

OF

THE

COMPLAINANT.

MR.

CHARLES

E.

McNEELY,

CITY

ATTORNEY,

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

31,

1979

Complaint

brought

by

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(‘Agency’).

On

September

12,

1980,

the

Agency

filed

an

Amended

Complaint.

Count I

of

the

Amended

Complaint

alleged

that,

from

May

2,

1978

until

September

12,

1980,

the

Respondent’s

wastewater

treatment facility

(‘facility’

or

‘plant’)

discharged

effluent

containing

contaminants

into

Seminary

Creek,

a

tributary

of

the

Illinois

River,

in

violation

of

Rule

203(a)

of

Chapter

3:

Water

Pollution Control Regulations (‘Chapter 3’), and Section 12(a) of

the Illinois Environmental

Protection

Act

(‘Act’).

Count II alleged that,

during

the

same

time

period,

the

City

of

Roodhouse’s facility produced offensive discharges and a gray

colored effluent in violation of Rule 403 of Chapter 3 and

Section 12(a) of the

Act.

Count III alleged that, from October 19, 1977 until January 25,

1979, the City of Roodhouse (‘City’)

had

bypassed

incoming

sewage

at

its

plant

without

providing

optimum operation and maintenance of

the

facility

and

without

treating

the

maximum practical flow in

violation of its NPDES Permit, Rules 601(a), 602(b),

and• 901 of

Chapter 3, and Sectjons 12(a) and 12(f) of the Act.

Count IV alleged that the City failed to dubmit the required

discharge monitoring reports for the months of April, 1978 to

December,

1978

in

violation

of

its

NPDES

Permit,

Rule

901

of

Chapter

3,

and

Section

12(f)

of

the

Act.

40—473

---

—

Count V alleged that, from May 2, 1978 until January 25,

1979,

the

City failed to use

flow

proportioned composite samples in

violation of its

NPD!S

Permit, Rule 901 of thapter 3, and

Section 12(f) of the Act.

Count VI alleged that, from

May

2, 1978 until September 12,

1980, the City failed to provide a properly certified operator for

its plant in violation of its

NPDES

Permit, Rules 901 and 1201 of

thapter 3, and Sections 12(a)

and

12(f) of the

Act.

Count

VII

alleged

that,

from October, 1977 until September 12,

1980, the City allowed the discharge of effluents from its plant

containing excessive amounts of BODk

and

suspended solids in

violation of Rule 901 of thapter 3 And Section 12(f) of the

Act.

Count VIII alleged

that,

from October 19, 1977 until January 25,

1979, the City failed to notify the

Agency

within 72 hours of various

diversions or bypasses which have occurred at the Respondent’ s

plant in violation of its NPDES Permit, Rule 901 of thapter 3, and

Section 12(f) of the Act.

Count IX alleged that, from October, 1977 until January 25, 1979,

the City has been in non—compliance with the effluent limitations

specified

in

its

NPDES

Permit

and

has

failed

to

notify

the

Agency

within 5 days of becoming aware of this non—compliance in violation

of its

NPDES

Permit, Rule 901 of thapter 3, and Section 12(f) of

the

Act.

Count X alleged that, from January 26, 1979 until September 12,

1980, the City allowed the discharge of effluents from its facility

into Illinois waters without an

NPDES

Permit for point source

discharges in violation of Section 12(f) of the Act.

A hearing was

held on October 28, 1980 at which members of the public were present.

On January 16, 1981, the parties filed a Stipulation and Proposal

for Settlement.*

The

City

of

Roodhouse

owns

and

operates

a

wastewater

treatment

facility

in

Greene

County,

Illinois

which

discharges

effluent

into

Seminary

Creek,

a

tributary

of the Illinois River, pursuant to NPDES

Permit No. IL 0024848.

(flip.

2).

This plant was built in the

1930’s.

(R.

7).

The parties have stipulated that, since

May

2,

1978, the facility has intermittently produced a gray colored

effluent which has sometimes contained fecal matter, toilet paper,

unnatural color and turbidity,

and

sludge deposits.

(Stip. 3).

*Although the settlement agreement was not signed at the time of the

hearing, the substance of the Stipulation filed on January 16, 1981

was

presented.

The

Board

finds

that

Procedural

Rule

331

has

been

substantially

complied

with.

40—474

---

It is also stipulated that, from October

19, 1977 until the

present time, the City has intermittently bypassed incoming sewage

at its plant without providing optimum operation of the facility

and without treating the maximum practical flow in violation of its

NPDES Permits

(Stip,

4).

These bypasses have “occurred during

periods of adverse wet weather and when high water conditions cause

the Seminary Creek to back up to the plants”

(Stip~4)~

Additionally, the parties have agreed that,

from April,

1978

until December,

1978,

the City has failed to submit the requisite

monthly discharge monitoring reports~

(Stip~4~5)~Moreover,

it

is stipulated that, since May 2,

1978,

the City failed to use flow

proportioned composite samples

in determining the plant~seffluent

values in violation of its NPDES Permit.

(Stip~5)~

Furthermore,

since May

2,

1978, the City failed to provide

a

properly certified treatment operator for its facility in violation

of its NPDES

Permits

(Stip~5~6)~Additionally, it is stipulated

that the City allowed the discharge of effluents which contained

excessive levels of BOD5 and suspended solids~

(Stip~6~7)~

The parties have also indicated that, on April

27,

1978 and

April

28, 1978,

diversions or bypasses occurred at the City~s

sewage treatment plant and that the City failed to promptly notify

the Agency of this situations

(Stip~8~9)~

On various occasions since October,

1977, the City has been in

non—compliance with the effluent levels specified in its NPDES

Permit and yet failed to notify the Agency within

5 days of becoming

aware of this non~compliance~ (Stip~9)~

At the hearing, the

Respondent~sattorney indicated that the City had experienced a

change—over in personnel over the last few years which led to

non—compliance with various reporting requirements, but stated that

the City is currently in compliance with these NPDES requirements~

(R.

7).

The proposed settlement agreement provides that the Respondent

admits all of the allegations

in the Amended Complaint and agrees

to cease and desist from further violations~

Additionally, the City

has

agreed to promptly:

(1)

employ a properly certified Class III

operator;

(2) install draft tubes on the surface aerators in the

aeration basin at the treatment plant;

(3) purchase lab equipment

to

he

used in performing tests for process control (i~e~,settleo—

meters,

a D~O~meter,

and a centrifuge);

(4)

install alarm systems

for power or equipment failures at the treatment plant and the Cain

Street lift station;

(5) reduce the amount of moisture present in

the dry well, prevent further corrosion by repainting components,

and

repair

or replace the ventilation fan at the Cain Street lift

station;

(6)

discontinue the use of the Lorton Street lift station,

when the City has obtained any required public health approval

for

installing a septic system to service the four houses

presently

served by

the

Lorton Street lift station;

(7) collect flow

proportioned

effluent composite samples;

(8) notify the Agency of

40—475

---

—4

any bypasses or diversions which occur at the wastewater treatment

facilities or any non—compliance with NPDES permit limitations;

(9)

submit

fully completed Discharge

Monitoring

Reports;

(10) establish instruction files for operation and maintenance of

major

equipment at the plant;

(11) establish and maintain an

operating

log

for

each

treatment

unit;

(12)

keep

an

accurate

and

complete

record

of

all

samples

according

to

specified

procedures;

(13)

pursue

funding

under

the

grant

program;

and

(14)

pay

a

stipulated penalty of $3,000.00

.

(Stip. 10—13;

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

Roodhouse,

has

violated

Rules

203(a),

403,

601(a),

602(b),

901,

and

1201

of

Chapter 3:

Water Pollution Control Regulations and Sections 12(a)

and 12(f) of the Act.

The Board will order the Respondent to

cease and desist from further violations and pay the stipulated

penalty of $3,000.00

This Opinion constitutes the

Board’

s findings of fact and

It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board that:

1.

The Respondent, the City of Roodhouse, has violated

Rules 203(a),

403, 601(a), 602(b), 901, and 1201 of Chapter 3:

Water Pollution Control Regulations and Sections 12(a) and 12(f)

of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.

2.

The

Respondent

shall

cease

and

desist

from

a11

further

violations.

3.

Within

60

days

of

the

date

of

this

Order,

the

City

of

Roodhouse shall, by certified check or money order payable to the

State of Illinois, pay the stipulated penalty of $3,000.00 which is

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois

62706

4

•

The

Respondent

shall

comply

with

all

the

terms

and

conditions of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement filed

January 16, 1981, which is incorporated by reference as if fully

set forth herein.

40—476

---

—5—

Chairman Dumelle dissents.

I,

Christan L, Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, heresy certify that the above Opinion and Order were adopted

on the

)9

day of

~

1981 by a vote of

4-/,

~ristan

L. Moff

Clerk

Illinois Pollutio

ontrol Board

40-477