ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 20,
1976
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
I
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 75—129
CITY OF FARMINGTON,
Respondent.
Mr. Anthony B.
Cameron, Assistant Attorney General, appeared on
behalf of Complainant.
Mr.
D. Dean Wilbon, Attorney At Law, Appeared on behalf of
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Goodman):
This matter comes before the Pollution Control Board
(Board)
on a complaint filed by the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
on March
25,
1975 against Respondent City of Farmington, Illinois
(Farmington).
A hearing was held in Farmington on June 27,
1975,
at which time Farmington and the Agency orally stipulated as
to the
existence of the violations alleged
in each and every count of the
Agency’s complaint
(R.7).
On January 26,
1976, the parties moved the
Board
to re-open the record in this matter.
Said motion was granted
and the record re-opened on January
29,
1976 for a period of sixty
days for the purpose of an additional hearing.
A second hearing was
held April
8,
1976 at which a stipulation and proposed settlement
were presented to the Board.
Said settlement requests
the Board to
modify its Order in PCB
75-346.
That Order required Farmington to
install a grit chamber and chlorination facility no later than
January
31, 1976.
The Agency and Farmington now request that the
grit chamber requirement be deleted upon certain conditions.
The
Board finds that the parties’
proposal to modify
a previous Board
Order some two months after compliance was to be completed to be
inappropriate.
Indeed,
if Respondent seeks variance from a Board
Order,
it should do so through the variance procedures provided in
21—405
—2—
the Board Procedural Rules.
The Board will reject the April
8,
1976
Stipulation.
Therefore,
as the issues of the violations have been
resolved,
it remains for the Board to consider the record
in this
case concerning facts and circumstances bearing upon the reasonable-
ness of the discharges involved
(Section 33(c)
of the Act).
Farmington owns and operates
a sewage treatment plant which dis-
charges into Littler’s Creek,
a body of water of the State of
Illinois, tributary to Spoon River.
Farmington admits to having vio—
lated Section 12(a)
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(Act),
and Rules
203(d),
402,
403,
404(a),
405,
501(a),
and 1201 of the
Water Regulations of this Board.
More specifically,
for example,
Farmington has discharged raw fecal material into Littler’s Creek
(page
3 of Complaint).
Farmington has discharged materials which emit
strong odors and create conditions harmful or toxic
to aquatic life
(page
5 of Complaint).
Farrnington has failed to file true,
correct,
and complete reports as required by the Agency
(page
8 of Complaint)
and has failed to provide a properly certified operator for its plant
(page
9 of Complaint).
These violations pose
a definite threat
to
the health and welfare of the inhabitants
of the Farmington area.
Any sewage treatment plant has an inherently high social value.
However, that value falls drastically if the plant,
as
in the instant
case,
is not operated properly.
Furthermore,
an improperly main-
tained plant cannot be suitable for any area regardless of the size
of the community it serves.
Clearly,
the “social value” and “suit-
ability” of
a plant are dependent upon its operating properly.
The
fact of these improper operations is admitted through the allegations
of paragraphs
4 and
5 of Count
I of the Complaint, and also re-
flected in the Agency’s prayer for relief.
The technical practicability and economic factors
in this case
clearly show that Farmington has not exhibited good faith efforts
to comply with the requirements of the Act and Water Regulations.
Farmington has admitted to violations dating back to July
27,
1971
(Complaint,
p.
2).
However, not until April of 1975,
after the
filing of the instant enforcement action, did Farmington attempt
to repair its trickling filter
(R.l7), distributor arm, or dosing
chamber
(R.l7),
install
a flow meter
(R.l7), or cease the bypassing
of material which was well within the capacity of the plant to
handle
(B. 18).
These are not unusual economic burdens
for a sewage
treatment plant.
They represent merely the accumulation of neglected
duties of normal maintenance.
Farmington has given no evidence to
suggest that it has not been feasible to provide for the normal
maintenance of its plant.
The fact that Farmington readily incurred
these expenses when faced with an enforcement action, and the history
of neglect which
is apparent from the record,
leads d~rect1yto the
21
—
406
—3—
conclusion that Farmington made
a conscious decision to allow
its
plant to deteriorate
(see also R.56).
Further,
the total cost of the purchase and installation of
a
grit chamber and chlorination unit
is $13,000
(R.28); not a prohibi-
tive cost.
There is no evidence that
it was not just as feasible
an
improvement of the plant’s operating efficiency four years
ago, es-
pecially given an effluent with fecal coliform of up to 7,400,000 per
lOOmi
(Complaint,
p.
3).
Farmington has stated that the existing plant has been capable
of meeting standards of 40 mg/l BOD5 and
50 mg/i suspended solids
(R.l9—20).
Instead,
it allowed the plant to discharge effluent with
up to 330 mg/l BOD5 and 362 mg/l suspended solids
(Complaint,
p.
3).
The costs of controlling these discharges would have been those of
normal maintenance.
Thus, while Farmington’s recent attempts to
return the plant to a proper operating condition, construct a grit
chamber and chlorination unit,
purchase certain measuring equipment
and facilitate construction of a new plant by the Farmington Sani-
tary District
(R.23)
are positive steps,
they do not outweigh the
years of neglect which have caused totally unnecessary and unreason-
able damage to the environment of the State of Illinois.
On September
4,
1975 Farmington filed a Petition for Variance
for the same facility from Water Regulation 404 (f).
In PCB 75-34 6
(December
18,
1975)
the Board found that Farmington’s existing plant
would not reasonably meet the standards of
4 mg/i BaD5 and
5 mg/i
suspended solids,
and granted a variance subject to four conditions.
The Board here finds, having a more complete record in the instant
case, that several additional conditions are warranted.
These
additional conditions contain more specific instructions as
to the
operating of the plant and operating reports.
On the matter of operating reports,
the Board is permitting
measurement of BOD5 and suspended solids to be determined by six
samplings per eight-hour shift,
rather than by a 24-hour composite
sample as required by Rule 401(c)
of the Water Regulations.
The
reasons are the potential savings of
$3,000 per annum
(R.4)
and the
fact that the existing plant is to be closed within a few years.
However, Farmington should also consider that the new plant would
be required to use the 24-hour composite method and that if such
device were purchased at this time,
it could probably be used in
the future plant also.
This penalty is not designed as
a punishment,
but rather to show Farmington that they have a duty to obey the Act
and the Board’s rules every day, and not just when faced with an en-
forcement action.
Were the Board to fail to penalize such flagrant
and patently unreasonable violations
as
in the instant case,
it would
21 —407
—4—
jeopardize the integrity of the entire enforcement program.
The
Board finds
a penalty of One Thousand Dollars
($1,000)
to be appropri-
ate in this case.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Board
in this matter.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Respondent City of Farmington
is found to have vio-
lated Section 12(a)
of the Environmental Protection Act, and
Rules 203(d),
402,
403,
404(a),
405,
501(a),
and 1201 of
Chapter
3:
Water Pollution,
of the Pollution Control Board’s
Rules and Regulations.
With respect to those violations:
A.
Respondent shall begin submission of monthly
operating reports within
30 days of this Order which
the Environmental Protection Agency shall,
in the exer-
cise of its reasonable discretion,
find acceptable.
These reports shall include:
1.
BOD5
levels determined by six
samplings per eight-hour shift.
2.
pH by grab samples, once weekly.
3.
Chlorine residual by grab samples
taken five times per week.
4.
Suspended solids determined by
six samplings per eight-hour shift.
B.
Respondent shall place operation of the
sewage treatment plant under active supervision of a
properly certified operator within
30 days of this
Order, or upgrade the current operator, one Bruce
Meade,
to proper certification on or before July 1,
1976.
C.
Respondent shall begin pre-treatment,
proper handling and proper storage or disposal of
all sludge at the subject plant within 120 days of
this Order.
D.
Respondent shall permanently secure the
21—408
—5—
adjustment of the bypass structure permitting by-
passing only when flow to the plant exceeds
1 MGD.
E.
Respondent City of Farmington shall, for
the violations found above,
pay
a penalty in the
amount of One Thousand Dollars
($1,000), payment
to be made by certified check or money order within
30 days of the date of this Order
to:
State of Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois
62706
2.
Respondent City of Farmington shall submit monthly pro-
gress reports to the Environmental Protection Agency, Division of
Water Pollution Control,
2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois
62706,
detailing progress on construction of the grit chamber and
chlorination facility,
and as to items
1(B) and
(C)
of this Order,
beginning no less than 30 days after the date of this Order.
Mr.
Young abstained.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted on
the
~
day of
1976 by a vote of
~5f-~
Illinois Pollution
oard
21—409