ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September

5,

1974

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

CITY OF MARION,

Respondent

Petitioner,

~NVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent

Larry

R,

Eaton, Assistant Attorney General for the EPA

William J~ Novick, Attorney for City of Marion

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Henss):

In

compliance with an order of

the Fifth District Appellate

Court, this

Board on January

24,

1974 vacated certain paragraphs

of previous Board Orders and directed the parties

to conduct

a

further public hearing to determine:

a)

whether the City

of

Marion

was

in compliance with

the Water Pollution Control Regulations,

b) manner

in which the new Water Pollution Control

Regulations applied to Marion, and

C)

what steps,

if

any,

are necessary for Marion to

achieve compliance with the Water Pollution Control

Regulations.

At the public hearing the parties reported that they had

reached agreement on the issues.

A Stipulation and Proposed

Order were subsequently submitted to this Board.

We have received

no objection to this document and shall decide the cases from the

facts submitted.

13

—477

---

—2—

Chronologically the history of these

two

cases is as

follows:

February 21, 1971

-

Agency Complaint

(PCB 71—25)

Section 12(a) of the Environmental

Protection Act

and

Rules 1.08(10) (6)

and

1.08(12) of SWB—l4.

May 12, 1971

—

Board rejects proposed settlement on

the

ground

that it had not been

approved by the Agency.

June 30, 1971

-

complaint.

July 2,

1971

—

eligibility.

July 30, 1971

-

viously agreed to compliance schedule.

October 16, 1971

—

various petition.

October 28, 1971

-

Board adopts Opinion

and

Order on

consolIdated cases.

November 30,

1971

-

decision.

March 7, 1972

-

Board adopts

new

Water Pollution

Control Regulations.

March 14, 1972

-

Board grants Marion’s motion for stay

of

Board

Order

relative

to

monetary

penalty

only.

October

5,

1972

Marion

submits

information

showing

a

at existing trickling filter plant to be

most cost—effective solution.

October 18, 1972

-

Court to set aside Board Order citing

provisions of

new

Water Pollution Control

Regulations differing from prior

5MB

13—478

---

—3—

October 18, 1972

-

Congress enacts Federal Water Quality

Act Amendments of 1972

(PL92-500)

June 29, 1973

-

U.

S. EPA approves Water Quality Manage-

ment Plan for Big Muddy Basin which included

City of Marion.

July 19,

1973

—

Board adopts Ru’e 409 extending the

December

31, 1973 compliance deadline

of Rule 404(f)

to December 31,

1974.

November

1,

1973

—

Fifth District Appellate Court remands

case

to Board for further hearings

regarding Marion~sposition relative to

the new Water Pollution Control Regulations.

January 24,

1974

-

Board enters Order pursuant to Appellate

Court remand.

City of Marion operates three lagoon Systems and a trickling

filter treatment plant to treat domestic waste from an estimated

12,000 people.

Effluent from the trickling filter plant

is chlorinated

prior to discharge to West End Creek,

a tributary of Crab Orchard Creek.

A good secondary effluent is maintained during average dry weather

flows of 500,000 to 800,000 gallons per day.

The hydraulic capacity

of the plant is 1,300,000 gallons per day.

During wet weather,

however,

as much

as

11 million to

13 million gallons per day reach

the plant causing enormous quantities of untreated sewage to be

bypassed directly to West End Creek.

Federal Regulations promulgated

in

July

1971 provided that no

project would be eligible in FY 1972 or thereafter for grant reim-

bursement unless such project was

in accordance with an Interim

Water Quality Management Plan developed in accordance with Federal

guidelines and approved by the U.

S.

EPA,

Under these Regulations,

Illinois EPA prepared the Interim Water Quality Management Plan for

the Big Muddy River Basin which included the City of Marion.

During the preparation of the Big Muddy River Basin plan the

Illinois Agency determi~edthat Marion~sthree lagoon systems were

notcapable of meeting the effluent requirements of 404(f) without

upgrading.

Also,

if the trickling filter treatment plant were

upgraded without consideration of the cost—effectiveness of consoli-

dation of all sewage treatment facilities, the Agency felt that the

City would be precluded from construction grant assistance.

City of

Marion was advised of these determinations in June 1972.

On

October

5,

1972 Marion submitted information which demonstrated that

a consolidated 2.5 MGD activated sludge treatment plant constructed

at the existing trickling filter plant site was the most cost-

effective solution.

13

—479

---

Upon

receiving

Marion~s proposal

in

December

1972

the

Agency

finalized

the

Marion

portion

of: the

Interim.

Water

Quality

Manage—

mcmi:

Plan

for

the

Big

Muddy

River

Basin.

The

complete

plan

for

the

entire

Basin

was

approved

by

the

U.

S.

EPA

in

June

1972.

When

the

Board~

s

prior

Orders

were

entered,

Marion

was

eligible

6or

State

and

Federal

monies

for

construction

of

advanced

treatment

facilities

and

excess

sewage

flow facilities.

Marion

applied

for

and

was

qranted

a

permit

for

such

project,

and, in addition,

applied for

and

was

granted

a

permit

for

replacement

of

1/2

mile

of

Interceptor

sewer

which

was

subject

to

excessive

infiltration.

The

estimated cost for Marion

to

achieve

compliance

at

that

time was

about.

$600,000.

However,

the

President

impounded

construction grant

funds

for

PU

1973,

and PL92—500

amended

the

reimbursement

provisions

of

Federaa law

in

sucn

manner

as

to

innihit.

the

start

of

local

projects

prior

to Federal

approval.

This

completely

changed

the

picture

for

Marion

and

numerous

other

Illinois

communities.

Marion now

proposes to construct

a

single

advanced

process

activated

sludge treatment plant at a

cost

of

about

$2,900,000,

Under

the

aroposed

schedule

outlined

in

the

Stiaulation,

all

jre

Jrur-a:j

pla~niriq,

ana1~rcis enaineer~.ngsp~c~ficat~ons

and

final

plans

would

be completed

by September l~

1974 with

actual

con—

struct:Lon

to

commence

on

June

1,

1975.

A

comptetion

date

of

August

30,

1976

is anticipated.

The proposed

project

is

designed

to

meet

all

requirements

of

the

Water

Pollution Control Regulations and

will

have

the

capability

of

providing treatment

of

sewage

from

the

adjacent

communities

of

SpillertorL, White Ash, Crab

Orchard,

Pittsburgh

and

Creal

Springs.

These

neighboring

communities

presently

rely

on

septic

tanks

and

outdoor

facilities

for

domestic

waste

water

disposal

in

an

area

unsuited for septic

tank

operation.

Marion’s

estimated

grant’assistance

from

the U.

S. EPA amounts

to $2,230,000.

This means that Marion is committed to a larger

expenditure of local funds for this project than had been required

to meet the requirements of SWB—14 under our prior Orders.

Such

additional cominittment is partially due to inflation but to a

larger extent reflects the cost of an advanced system designed to

meet Marion’s requirements for many years rather than

an interim

solution as originally proposed.

Based on the entire record of these two cases,

the Board believes

the parties have presented a commendable program for achieving

compliance with the law.

We accept the program as proposed and

shall order Marion to fully implement the project as described in

the Stipulation.

13

—

480

---

—5—

Two

matters

require

a

brief

statement

to

complete

this

record.

The

first

matter

concerns

a

$100

penalty

imposed

in

our

prior

Order

for

failure

to

meet

the

requirements

of

SWB-14

with

respect

to

submission

of

plans

and

award

of

construction

contracts.

Upon

imposing

the

penalty

the

Board

stated:

“...We

cannot

let

the

serious

violation

of

the

important

interim

deadline

pass

altogether.

But

Marion’s

eIemplary

response

to

the

filing

of

the

Complaint,

its

excellent

record

for

operation

of

its

existing

plant,

and

the

critical

fact

that

its

error

is

not

expected

to

result

in

continued

pollution greatly mitigate the offense”.

At the public hearing the Agency expressed the opinion

that

penalty

is

no

longer

warranted

“under

the

facts

of

the

case

at

this

time”.

The

Board

agrees,

particularly

in

view

of

the

scope

and

complexity

of

the

project

we

approve

today.

The

financial

burden

assumed

by

Marion

and

the

manner

in

which

Marion

has

agreed

to

solve

its

water

pollution

problem,

in

our

opinion,

warrants

the

exclusion

of

any

penalty.

Finally,

our

interpretation

of

the

proposal

is

that

Marion

would,

by

our

acceptance

of

the

program,

be

afforded

the

legal

protection

of

variance

although

such

is

not

expressly

stated

in

the

proposed

order.

In

order to preclude any possible misunder-

standing of our intent in approving this program, we shall

explicitly

provide

such

protection.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:

1.

City of Marion is hereby ordered

to

install

and

operate

upgraded

improved

sewage

treatment

facilities

including

modification

of

the

existing

trickling

filter

facility

to

a

2.5

MGD

advanced

process

activated

sludge

treatment

plant

in

full

accordance

with

the

schedule

contained

in

the

Joint

Stipulation.

2.

Until

such

treatment

plant

shall

be

placed

into

operation,

City

of

Marion

shall

operate

its

existing

waste

treatment

facilities

in

such

manner

that

no effluent

shall

exceed

25

mg/l

DOD

or

25

mg/l

suspended

solids

except

that

wet weather flows in

excess

of

1.3

MGD

shall

not be subject to

this

requirement.

Chlorine

residual

in

the

treated

effluent

shall

be

maintained

between

0.5

mg/l

and

1.0

mg/l

during

this

interim

period.

:3.

City

of

Marion

shall

provide

suitable

sampling

taps

for

all

effluent

and

bypass

lines

in

accordance

with

the

provisions

of

Rule

502

of

the

Water

Pollution

Control

Regulations

within

30

days

of

receipt

oi

this

Order

4.

Paragraph

8

of

the

Board

Order

dated

October

28,

1971

is

hereby

stricken.

5~

City

of

Marion

is

granted

variance

from

Rule

404(f)

c-f the Water Pollution Control Regulations until

August

28,

1975.

6.

City

of

Marion

shall

submit

monthly

progress

reports

to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Said progress

reports shall commence on September 28, 1974 and shall

provide

dc-tails of Petitioner’s progress toward corn—

pletion of the new waste treatment facilities.

I, Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order was adopted this

_________day

of

________

)1974 by

a vote of ____to~

13

—