ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    December
    3,
    1981
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCi 80—191
    CITY OF BENTON,
    a municipality,
    )
    and JAMES
    P. ODOM, an
    individual,
    Respondents.
    CHRISTINE ZEMAN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE
    COMPLAINANT.
    RONALD J.
    GIACONE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
    CITY OF BENTON.
    ELMER JENKINS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
    JAMES
    P. ODOM.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by N.E.Werner):
    This matter comes before the Board on the October 14, 1980
    Complaint brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (“Agency”).
    On October
    23,
    1980, Respondent James P. Odom (“Odom”) filed a
    Motion to Dismiss the Agency’s Complaint and a Motion to Strike a
    portion of the Complaint.
    On November 6,
    1980, the Agency filed a
    Motion for Leave to File Objection Instanter and an Objection to the
    Motions to Dismiss and Strike,
    On November 20,
    1980, the Board
    entered an Order granting the Agency’s motions and denying Respondent
    Odom’s motions.
    On November 24,
    1980, Respondent City of Benton (the ~CityN)
    filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint against the City.
    On
    December
    3,
    1980, the Agency filed an Objection to the Motion to
    Dismiss the Complaint against the City of Benton and a Memorandum
    of Law.
    On December 4,
    1980,
    the Board entered an Order denying the
    City’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.
    On December 22,
    1980,
    Respondent Odom filed an Objection to the
    Hearing Officer and the Hearing Officer sent in a letter asking to
    be allowed to withdraw from this case.
    This case was subsequently
    assigned to a new Hearing Officer.
    44—151
    On March
    9,
    1981, the Agency filed a Motion to Amend the
    Complaint,
    Proposed Order,
    and an Amended Complaint.
    Count
    I of the Amended Complaint alleged that,
    intermittently
    from August
    1,
    1976 until the filing of the Complaint (including, but
    not limited to, August 24,
    1976, February 21, 1979,
    and July 24, 1980),
    the City allowed discharges of untreated wastewater from a broken main
    influent sewer line to its sewage treatment plant to directly enter
    the receiving stream, Sugar Creek, an Illinois water,
    causing the creek
    to contain unnatural sludge or bottom deposits,
    floating debris, and
    unnatural color or turbidity in violation of Rules 203(a) and 402 of
    Chapter
    3: Water Pollution Control Regulations
    (‘~Chapter3”)
    and
    Section 12(a)
    of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
    (“Act”),
    Count II alleged that,
    from August
    1,
    1976 until the filing of
    the Complaint, discharges of effluent from the City’s broken sewer
    line to Sugar Creek contained settleable solids, floating debris,
    and
    sludge solids
    in violation of Rule 403 of Chapter
    3 and Section 12(a)
    of the Act.
    Count III alleged that, from August
    1,
    1976 until the filing of
    the Complaint,
    Respondent Odom (who owns the property on which the
    break in the City’s sewer line occurred) refused to allow the City’s
    employees access to the broken sewer
    line, thus allowing the
    discharge of untreated wastewater from the City’s broken sewer line
    on Odom’s property to Sugar Creek causing the creek to contain
    unnatural sludge, floating debris, and unnatural color or turbidity
    in violation of Rules 203(a) and 402 of Chapter
    3 and Section 12(a)
    of
    the Act.
    Count IV alleged that,
    intermittently from August
    1,
    1976 until
    the filing of the Complaint, Odom allowed discharges of effluent from
    the City’s broken sewer
    line on Odom’s property to Sugar Creek to
    contain settleable solids,
    floating debris, and sludge solids
    in
    violation of Rule 403 of Chapter
    3 and Section 12(a) of the Act,
    On March
    17,
    1981,
    the new Hearing Officer granted the Agency’s
    Motion to Amend its Complaint.
    On March 26,
    1981, Respondent Odom filed an Answer to the
    Amended Complaint.
    On April 27,
    1981,
    the City filed its Answer to
    the Amended Complaint.
    A hearing was held on October
    14,
    1981.
    The parties filed a
    Stipulation and Proposal
    for Settlement on October 21,
    1981.
    The City of Benton, which has
    a population of about
    7,778
    people,
    owns and operates a sewage treatment plant
    (the “plant” or
    “facility”) consisting of a trickling filter wastewater treatment
    system which
    “is located just north of Petroff Road and West of
    Illinois
    57 in Franklin County, Illinois.”
    (Stip.
    2).
    The main influent sewer line to the plant, which is owned by the
    City,
    consists of a 30” sanitary trunk sewer,
    (Stip,
    2),
    It is
    44~152
    stipulated that, from August
    1,
    1976 until October
    7,
    1980, the main
    influent sewer line to the plant was broken at a point located on
    property just south of Petroff Road owned by Respondent Odom,
    (Stip.
    3).
    The Agency has asserted that,
    intermittently from August
    1,
    1976
    until October
    7,
    1980, discharges of untreated wastewater from the
    broken sewer
    line entered Sugar Creek and caused the creek to contain
    unnatural solids, floating debris,
    and unnatural color or turbidity.
    Both Respondents have indicated that “such discharges might or could
    have occurred.”
    (Stip.
    3),
    On October
    7,
    1980,
    the leak of
    unnatural wastewater from the City’s broken sewer
    line to Sugar Creek
    was stopped and the City completed repairing this broken sewer line
    on October
    10,
    1980.
    (Stip,
    4).
    A subsequent Agency inspection on
    October 14,
    1980 confirmed that this repair was,
    in fact,
    made,
    (Stip.
    4).
    The parties have indicated that,
    from August
    1,
    1976 until
    October
    7,
    1980, there was a dispute between the City and Respondent
    Odom pertaining to the issue of “whether or not the City of Benton
    had a right to enter upon the property of Odom by way of easement
    or
    license” and this dispute about the right of entry
    “hampered the
    city’s access” onto Odom’s property and delayed the repair of the
    broken sewer
    line,
    (Stip.
    4).
    Moreover, during the time period from the fall of 1976 until
    October
    7,
    1980, Respondent Odom did nothing to repair the break
    in
    the sewer line pending the completion of his sporadic negotiations
    with the City pertaining to property access by City employees,
    (Stip.
    4).
    On August 15,
    1981,
    the Respondents finally agreed upon
    the preliminary terms of an easement on Odom’s property to allow
    access by City personnel to maintain and repair the sewer
    line in
    question.
    Although “several tentative agreements were reached”,
    actual access to the broken sewer
    line was not approved by Odom
    until October of
    1980.
    (Stip.
    4).
    The proposed settlement agreement provides that the Respondents
    admit the applicable allegations
    in the Complaint and agree to cease
    and desist from further violations and pay a stipulated penalty
    of
    $500.00 each.
    (Stip. 6~7),
    In evaluating this enforcement action and proposed settlement
    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 settlement agreement
    acceptable under Procedural Rule 331 and Section 33(c)
    of the Act.
    Accordingly,
    the Board finds that the Respondents, the City of
    Benton,
    a municipality, and James P.
    Odom, an individual, have
    violated Rules 203(a),
    402,
    and 403 of Chapter
    3:
    Water Pollution
    Control Regulations and Sections 12(a) of the Illinois Environmental
    Protection Act.
    The Respondents will be ordered to cease and desist
    from further violations and pay
    a stipulated penalty of $500.00 each,
    44~153
    —4—
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of
    fact and
    conclusions of law in this matter.
    ORDER
    It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board that:
    1.
    The Respondents, the City of Benton,
    a municipality, and
    James P.
    Odom,
    an
    individual, have violated Rules 203(a),
    402,
    and
    403 of Chapter
    3:
    Water Pollution Control Regulations and
    Section 12(a)
    of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act,
    2.
    The Respondents shall cease and desist from further
    violations.
    3.
    Within 45 days of the date of this Order, the Respondents
    shall,
    by
    certified check or money order payable to the State of
    Illinois, pay the stipulated penalty of $500,00 each which is to be
    sent to:
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    Fiscal Services Division
    2200 Churchill Road
    Springfield, Illinois
    62706
    4.
    The
    Respondents shall comply with all the terms and
    conditions of
    the Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement
    filed
    on
    October 21,
    1981, which is incorporated by reference as
    if fully
    set forth herein,
    I, Christan L, Moffett,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control
    Board, herep
    certify than the above Opinion and Order were ~adopted
    on the
    ~
    day of
    ~-,
    1981 by a vote of
    ___
    Christan
    L. Moffett,TC~~
    Illinois Pollution Cor~t~,i
    Board
    44—154

    Back to top