ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November 8,
1972
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 72—175
CITY OF WEST FRANKFORT,
Respondent,
Delbert
D. Haschemeyer, Assistant Attorney General, for the
Environmental Protection Agency;
Don R. Lucas,
for Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Parker):
This
is an enforcement proceeding brought by the Agency
against the City of West Frankfort, owner and operator of
a
sewage treatment plant located at West Frankfort, and the
effluent from which discharges into a small creek known as
Big Ditch, which
is tributary to the Middle Fork of The Big
Muddy River.
The Complaint,
filed April
27,
1972,
charges Respondent
with violations of Rules 1.03(a) (objectionable sludge deposits),
1.03(b)
(floating debris), 1.03(c)
(nuisance conditions
as to
color, odor),
1.08(4)
(excessive water temperature changes),
1,08(lObl)
(failure to remove settleable solids),
1,08(10b2)
(failure to remove floating debris),
l.08(10b3)
(failure to
remove color,
odor,
turbidity), and l.08(llc)
(failure to
obtain best possible level of treatment)
of SWB”l4, remaining
in effect pursuant to Section 49(c)
of the Environmental
Protection Act; Rule 1.02 of SWB—2, also remaining in effect
pursuant to Section 49(c)
of the Act, and Section 12(a)
of the
Act,
With two exceptions, the proof that the violations occurred
is overwhelming.
Although the record contains no clear statement on the
point,
it seems reasonable to conclude that the City is spend’-
ing a minimum on repairs
to the plant, hoping to get by until
a new facility can be built.
It appears that bids were opened
for the construction of a new plant shortly before the public
hearing
(R.
152)
.
The new facility will cost $1,130,000
(R.
177)
of which the Cityvs share will be $430,000
CR.
177),
and is
expected to be built in one to one and a half years
(R,
184)
6— 159
Respondent’s plant was designed about
25 years ago to
provide primary and secondary treatment for approximately
10,000 population.
Although the present population is only
about 8,800,
so that there appears to be no hydraulic
overloading,
the plant is old and in a state of disrepair.
Raw sewage enters the plant from the City sanitary sewers
and passes through a bar screen on its way to primary settling
tanks,
The supernatant liquid then passes through a Parshall
flume
—
a measuring device which gives flow rates
—
and into
a wet well from which it
is
pumped to one of the plant’s two
trickling filters,
After the liquid leaves the trickling
filters, it goes to final settling tanks,
and then through dis-
charge pipes into the Big Ditch.
The plant also has primary
and secondary sludge digestors.
Rule 1,08(llc)
of SWB-l4 created a regulatory requirement
that
each plant be operated to provide the best degree of
treatment consistent
with
design limitations.
The following
catalogue of operational defects amply illustrates Respondent’s
failure to comply with this Rule.
On several dates in 1971
and 1972,
including August 8,
1972,
the day of the public hearing
in this matter, the Respondent’s sewage treatment plant was in
an incredible state of disrepair.
Among the problems were a
bar gate that had been rusted in a fixed position for at least
seven years
(R.
54);
a sludge digestor roof that had been in a
collapsed condition for at least seven years
(R.
55);
a bar
screen that clogs up as often
as every five minutes
(R.
59)
and is cleared approximately every half hour
(R.
60);
a
trickling filter that leaks heavy, steady streams
(Agency
Exhibit
11); pine needles falling into the sludge digestor and
clogging the operation
(R.
68);
and electrical circuitry so
poor that the plant supervisor was afraid fuses and coils would
blow if he used all of the equipment in the plant
(R.
37,
38).
All these problems undoubtedly contributed to the poor quality
effluent the plant produced;
to
the consistent by-passing
of
raw sewage to
the
Big Ditch;
and to the resultant pollution of
the Big Ditch.
Also relevant to plant operations are the provisions of
SWB-2,
Rule 1.02 of SWB-2 requires that the operator of a
sewage treatment plant be properly certified,
Respondent
stipulated that as of the date of the hearing, August 8,
1972,
that the supervisor of the plant did not have proper certifica-
tion
(R.
22—23)
The quality of the plant’s effluent was very poor.
For
example, BOD5 levels of
39
to 140 mg./l were measured,
as were
suspended solids levels of
25 to 56 mg./l.
Also,
fecal coliform
count in the effluent at its point of discharge into the Big.
Ditch was never less than 1,300,000 per 100 ml
(Agency Exhibit 5),
and ranged as high as 5,400,000 per 100 ml
(Agency Exhibit 6),
It should be noted that on two days for which raw sewage entering
—2—
6
—
160
the plant was tested,
January
13 and January 14,
1972,
it had a
fecal coliform count of 5,300,000 per 100 ml and 5,500,000 per
100 ml, respectively.
The consistent by—passing had a significant adverse effect
on the stream quality.
This effect is best illustrated by the
samples collected on January 13,
1972,
a day during which
significant by—passing occurred.
Stream quality approximately
100 feet downstream,
at a location below both the effluent and
by-pass discharges into the stream, was poorer than the effluent
quality for the following parameters:
BaD5,
suspended solids,
and fecal coliform.
Comparison of downstream with upstream
quality on that same date showed BOD~was 30 times greater
downstream than upstream,
fecal coli~ormwas 1,700
times
greater downstream than upstream,
total phosphorus was 10 times
greater downstream than upstream, and ammonia was more than 15
times greater downstream than upstream
(Agency Exhibit 10).
The samples collected on January 14,
1972,
show comparable
results
(Agency Exhibit
9)
The poor quality effluent and the consistent by—passing
had dramatic and damaging effects on the biota of
the Big Ditch.
Mr. William Tucker,
a biologist for the Agency, testified as
to a biological
survey he conducted in the Big Ditch on January
28, 1972
(Agency Exhibit 18),
Approximately 100 feet upstream
from the plant,
there was a modest tally of aquatic
life
present,
consisting of midge larvae, sow bugs,
worms and snails,
Approximately one—half mile downstream of the plant, no life
was observed,
Instead, floating solids skimmed along the
water and more than one foot of sludge had carpeted the river
bottom.
As for The Big Muddy River itself, approximately two miles
downstream of the plant and nearly one and one—half miles
downstream of the confluence of the Big Ditch with The Middle
Fork of the Big Muddy, one midge larvae was found.
Sludge a
foot deep still carpeted the river bottom.
But upstream of
the
confluence,
the survey showed normal aquatic life conditions.
Comprehensive analyses made of the Big Ditch on January
13
and 14,
1972,
by Mr. John Gordon of the Agency and Mr. Roger
Walker of the Agency,
included temperature measurements both
upstream and downstream of the sewage treatment plant
(Agency
Exhibits 10 and
9, respectively).
On January 13,
1972,
the water
temperature approximately 30 yards downstream of the plant was
130 F. higher than the water temperature upstream.
On January
14, 1972,
the downstream increase was 16°F.
Rule 1.08(4)
of
SWB—14 prohibits changes in excess of
s0
F.
from natural water
temperature.
However, there was no evidence that the measured
water temperature upstream on either day was in fact the natural
water temperature of Big Ditch.
We
are therefore unable to find
a violation of Rule 1.08(4)
of SWB-l4.
6
—
161
The frequent by—passing of raw sewage from tne sanitary
sewer makes it obvious that the sludge deposits, with the
accompanying septic odor
(Agency Exhibit 16), are attributable
to municipal discharges in violation of Rule 1.03(a)
of SWB-14.
These sludge deposits were observed on January 13, 1972,
January 14,
1972,
January 28, 1972 and June 21, 1972
(Agency
Exhibits 10,
9,
18 and 14, respectively).
Unsightly floating debris, scum and other floating
materials were found in the Big Ditch downstream of the plant
on the same four days the sludge deposits were observed.
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent violated Rule 1.03(b)
of SWB—l4.
Highly visible setteable solids were also noted
on the same four days,
giving rise to our finding that
Respondent was in violation of Rule 1.08
(l0bl)
of SWB—l4.
The Respondent’s facility did not provide for the removal
of all floating debris,
scum or sludge solids in violation of
Rule 1.08
(lOb2),
and did not provide for the removal of color
and turbidity below obvious levels in violation of Rule 1.08
(lOb3)
,
on March
2,
1971
(R.
37)
,
August 7,
1972
CR.
39) and
Agusut
8,
1972
(R.
118),
in addition to being in violation of
these two rules on the four dates previously discussed.
The Respondent has operated its facility in a manner so
remote from methods whereby best possible treatment would have
occurred, within design limitations, on each day discussed,
that we find there have been repeated violations of Rule
l.08(llc).
We find the Respondent to have caused or allowed
water pollution in violation of Section 12(a)
of the Act on
each day discussed thus
far.
Complainant did not, however, prove
a violation of
Rule 1.03(c)
of SWB—l4.
While there was evidence as to color
and odor resulting from municipal discharge,
there were no
complaining citizen witnesses at the public hearing and we find
the record contains insufficient evidence that a nuisance was
created, apart from the violations described above.
Turning now to the question of remedies,
it is apparent
that the Respondent did little to correct the long—standing
and well-documented deficiencies in its sewage treatment plant.
Yet the City advances certain arguments in mitigation of
penalties.
In 1968,
the City forbade discharge of oil into the
sanitary sewer system by two filling stations.
On another
occasion,
the City either bought or rebuilt a pump motor,
The
City also made occasional and minor electrical repairs,
“trying
to keep it more or less taped together until we can replace it”.
CR.
164).
According to the City Clerk, the maintenance
expenditures averaged approximately $15,000 per year, exclusive
of wages, for the last five years.
(R.
197).
—4--
6—
162
Some
difficulty to the sewage treatment plant was said to
be caused
by road construction by the State which resulted in
increased
runoff ~
Big Ditch and apparently threatened
inundation
of the plant.
We
find
these arguments unpersuasive for the most part.
There
is no evidence as to what repairs were actually made for
the
$15,000 per year spent; clearly whatever repairs were
made were inadequate.
As for the runoff—road construction
excuse,
the plant was deficient before the road construction,
during the construction, after the construction, and is deficient
today, although the runoff problem has been solved.
In 1967 the
City determined that costs of repair of the facility would be
about the
same as costs of building a new one
CR.
145,
159).
Five years later, on June 23,
1972,
bids were opened for
the
construction of the new facility.
In
the interim, an example
of maintenance was described as follows:
WQ
(by counsel
for
the EPA),
Did he ever warn you
or say anything to you about the gas coming off
the top of that digestor as being explosive?
A.
(by the Respondent’s plant operator), Yes,
sir.
Q.
What
did he tell you about that?
A.
We
had
put signs around there, no smoking or
nothing”
(R. 64-65).
We are confronted with a situation where the Respondent
has
been knowingly in gross violation of the law for several years.
The Respondent
is a municipality, and thus can be said to have
only
limited
funds
available for repair work.
The Respondent at
long last appears to be moving toward compliance by constructing
a
new
facility.
Although the problem of arriving at an appropriate sanction
is difficult, we believe a substantial penalty
is
justified
because of the long standing nature of the violations and their
severity.
For the repeated violations of SWB-2, SWB-l4 and the
?~ct,
we hereby levy a penalty of $2,500, consistent
with
prior
decisions of this Board
(see City of Springfield
v.
EPA,
PCB7O-55,
1 PCB 397 and Glovka v.
NSSD,
PCB71-269,
3 PCB 647).
While we are pleased that the City of West Frankfort has
finally moved toward a long term solution, the construction of
the
new
facility, we must insist that interim measures be employed
to correct the present deficiencies of the existing facility.
Mast of the problems seem to result from inadequate plant
maintenance.
For example,
freeing the rusted bar gate and improv-
ing the bar screen should help solve the raw sewage bypass
problem.
Repairs such as this should have been made in the past.
We
insist that
they
be made in the very near future.
Unfortunately,
—5—
6
—
163
the record is quiet as to what interim measures should be
implemented, and when they can be completed.
For this reason,
our Order herein provides for Respondent to submit appropriate
plans for correcting the deficiencies to the Agency and to
the Board.
This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the Board.
IT
IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Penalty in the amount of $2,500 is assessed against
the Respondent for violations
of Rules 1.03(a),
1.03(b),
l.08(lobl),
l.08(10b2), l.08(lOb3)
and 1.0B(llc)
of SWB—14;
Rule
1.02
of SWB-2; and Section 12(a)
of the Environmental
Protection Act.
Payment shall be made within
35 days by
certified check payable to the State of Illinois, and sent
to:
Fiscal Services Division, Illinois Environmental Pro-
tection Agency,
2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois
62706.
2.
(a)
Respondent shall submit
to the Agency within 30
days of the date of this Order plans to correct the de-
ficiencies discussed herein, including eliminating by—passing
of sewage; eliminating depositing of sludge on the river bottom;
and freeing the river from debris,
scum,
color, turbidity,
sus—
pended solids and other unsigntly floating materials.
(b)
The
Agency
shall
approve
or
reject
Respondent’s
interim
improvement
plans
within
10
days
of
receipt
by
the
Agency of said plans.
Cc)
Respondent
shall
resubmit
to
the
Agency,
within
10
days
of
receipt
by
Respondent
of
the
Agency’s
response,
revised
plans,
if
necessary,
in
accordance
with
the
Agency’s
response.
Cd)
Respondent shall submit to the Board within 60
days of this Order approved plans
for interim control, and
shall
have implemented
said plans within 90 days of entry of
this Order.
Ce)
The Board retains jurisdiction of
this cause for
such further proceedings as may be necessary consistent with
this Opinion and Order.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control
Board,
certify
that
the
above
Opinion
and
Order
was
adopted
on
the
____
day
of
~.
.
.
.
,
1972,
by
a
vote
of
to
.
~I.
t
..
,.
-:
.~
L
~-