ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April
2,
1981
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
)
v.
)
PCB 76—241
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION,
)
a Georgia Corporation,
)
)
Respondent.
PATRICK J.
CHESLEY AND BRIAN
E.
REYNOLDS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL,
APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT.
RICHARD
A.
HORDER, ATTORNEY AT LAW AND REGIONAL COUNSEL OF THE
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND
ORDER
OF THE BOARD
(by N.E.Werner):
This matter comes before the Board on the September 28,
1976
Complaint brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”).
After various discovery motions were filed, the Agency
filed a Motion to Stay the proceedings pending the approval of a
grant to the Taylorville Sanitary District to expand its treatment
plant (which would allow the Respondent to tie—in to the Taylorville
sewer system).
In the Agency’s Motion to Stay the proceedings in this case
(which was filed on July 14,
1977), the affidavit of the Assistant
Attorney General noted that:
“...The alleged odor problems caused by Georgia—Pacific
are believed to come from two wastewater treatment
lagoons.
If the Taylorville Sanitary District’s expansion
grant is approved, then Georgia-Pacific will he able to
discharge its wastewater to the Taylorville Sanitary
District for treatment.
Georgia—Pacific will then
eliminate the lagoons by dewatering and covering, thus
eliminating the odor problem.
...During the pendency of the approval of the grant,
Georgia-Pacific has agreed to undertake interim steps to
reduce its alleged odor problem.
Georgia-Pacific has
agreed to dewater the first of its twenty—five acre lagoons,
then excavate, cover, and lime the sludge accumulations.
41—151
A small pre—settling pond will replace the first lagoon.
Also, the two aerators from the first lagoon will be
moved to the second lagoon.
At the present time,
Georgia—
Pacific has almost completed dewatering the first
lagoon.
....The Environmental Protection Agency feels that
Georgia—Pacific has proceeded at an acceptable rate in
accomplishing its interim solution...the grant applications
made by the Taylorville Sanitary District...are being
processed and.. .there appears to be no problem with
approvaL..However, there still exists the possibility
that problems could arise...”
On August 4,
1977,
the Board granted the Agency’s Motion to
Stay.
On October 31,
1978, the Agency filed a Motion to Terminate
the Stay imposed by the prior Board Order of August
4,
1977 and
filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint and an Amended
Complaint.
On November 16,
1978, the Board granted the Agency’s
Motion to Terminate the Stay and granted the Agency’s Motion for
Leave to File an Amended Complaint.
On November
5,
1979, the Agency
filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint and a Second Amended Complaint.
This motion was subsequently granted by the Hearing Officer in an
Order dated June 15,
1980.
Count
I of the Second Amended Complaint alleged that, inter-
mittently from August 13,
1974 until November
5, 1979,
the Georgia-
Pacific Corporation
(the “Company”) allowed the improper discharge
of odors from two lagoons at its sewage treatment facility in
violation of Rule 102 of Chapter
2:
Air Pollution Control Regulations
(“Chapter 2”) and Section 9(a) of the Illinois Environmental Protection
Act (“Act”).
Count II alleged that, on or before December
9,
1970, the
Company installed without a permit “certain equipment,
including
but not limited to aerators, which constituted a deviation from
approved plans
as defined by Rule 1.04 of Article
I of the Sanitary
Water Board’s Rules and Regulations, continued
in effect by
Section 49(c) of the Environmental Protection Act,” in violation of
Section 12(b)
of the Act.
Count III alleged that, from November
1, 1977 until November
5,
1979, the Company’s wastewater discharges to the South Fork of the
Sangamon River,
a navigable Illinois water, were in excess of the
effluent limitations in its NPDES Permit for BODç and total suspended
solids in violation of Rules
410(a) and 901 of
CFiapter 3:
Water
Pollution Control Regulations (“Chapter 3”) and Sections 12(a) and
12(f)
of the Act.
Count IV alleged that,
from September 17,
1979 until November
5,
1979,
discharges from the Respondent’s sewage treatment facility into
the South
Fork of the Sangamon River caused unnatural color and
turbidity and caused dissolved oxygen levels to be less than 5.0 mg/i
41—152
in violation of Rule 402 of Chapter
3 and Section
12(a) of the Act.
A hearing was held on October 31,
1980.
The parties filed a
Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement on December 30,
1980.*
On February
4,
1981, the parties filed
a Joint Motion to Correct
Clerical Error which requested that the Board allow the parties to
substitute a corrected page
9 for the old page
9 of the previously
filed Stipulation of Facts and Proposal for Settlement.
This motion
will be granted.
The
Georgia—Pacific Corporation is “engaged in the business of
stationery paper manufacturing,
at a mill located at Elm Street and
Hopper Drive, in Taylorville,
Christian County,
Illinois.”
(Stip.
2).
Wastewater from the Elm Street mill
flows to the Company’s sewage
treatment plant which is “located Southeast of Taylorville on the
Southeast side of Illinois Route 48 approximately three quarters of
a mile Southwest of the junction of Illinois Route 48 and Illinois
Route 29.”
(Stip.
2).
It is stipulated that “odors have intermittently been generated
by the facility and have been carried by the wind to the homes of
nearby residents”
since “at least August
13, 1974”.
(Stip.
2).
Additionally, the parties have agreed that odors from the plant have
caused air pollution frequently during the summer months and
intermittently at other times.
(Stip.
2).
However,
the parties
have indicated that the intensity and frequency of these odors
diminished during the summer of 1980.
(Stip.
3).
Although the Company originally installed aerators at its plant
without
a permit, on February 28,
1977 the Agency issued the
Respondent a permit to operate these aerators,
(Stip.
3).
Subse-
quently,
on June 10,
1977,
the Agency issued an NPDES Permit for
the Company to allow wastewater discharges from the lagoons at the
plant
(i.e., “a discharge occurs from the second lagoon via a point
source into the South Fork of the Sangamon River”),
(Stip.
3—4).
The parties have stipulated that effluent discharges often
exceeded the NPDES Permit limitations for BODç and total
suspended
solids during the time period from November,
t977 until November,
1979.
(Stip.
4—5).
Moreover,
it is stipulated that discharges from the
second lagoon at the Company’s sewage treatment plant “caused the
South Fork of the Sangamon River to appear red or pink”
during
September and October of 1979.
Agency inspection and water sampling
during this time period revealed that the cause of the red or pink
color “was a rupture
in the baffle in lagoon two.
This rupture,
which has since been repaired, allowed the wastewater to be
discharged without sufficient retention time”,
(Stip.
5).
*Although the settlement agreement was not signed at the time of the
hearing, the substance of the Stipulation
filed on December 30,
1980
was presented.
The Board finds that Procedural Rule 331 has been
substantially complied with.
41—153
Compounding
the environmental problems, various private homes
attached their sewer lines to the main line which carries wastewater
from the mill to the Company’s sewage treatment plant.
(Stip. 6;
R.
45—46).
These improper connections “occurred without the knowledge
or permission of the Respondent.”
(Stip.
6).
The Company has already spent about $60,000.00 on an Agency—
approved
interim
program
to
eliminate
the
odor
and
effluent
problems
and
“anticipates
that
an
additional
$60,000
will
be
necessary
to
complete”
this
interim
program.
(Stip.
6).
Moreover,
one
proposed
long—range
solution
to the odor and
effluent
problems
is
for
the
Company
to
entirely discontinue the use
of
its
sewage
treatment
plant
and to
discharge
wastewater
from
the
mill
directly
into
the
Taylorville
Sanitary
District.
(Stip.
6).
The
proposed
settlement
agreement
provides
that
the
Company
agrees
to
discontinue
the
use
of
its
sewage
treatment
plant
“as
soon
as
its
wastewater
from
the
mill
is
discharged
into
the
Taylorvtlle
Sanitary
District.”
(Stip.
7).
However,
if
the
Company
determines
that
this alternative is economically infeasible before starting to
discharge to the Taylorville Sanitary District, the
Company
has
agreed to immediately notify the
Agency
in writing of this situation.
(Stip. 7).
If this is the case, the
Company
has agreed
that,
within
3 months, it will submit an appropriate compliance plan and schedule
to the Agency.
(Stip. 7).
Additionally, the
Company
has
agreed
to
take
various
specified
steps to minimize environmental problems until the proposed tie—in
to the Taylorville Sanitary District takes place.
(Stip. 7).
These
measures include:
(1) the addition of
lime
to the wastewater which
flows from the mill;
(2) the construction of presettling ponds;
(3)
the
covering
of
specified
areas
with
dirt
and
the
subsequent
seeding,
fertilization,
and the
establishment
of
vegetative
growth;
(4)
proper
maintenance
of
the
baffle
in
lagoon
two;
and
(5)
compliance
with
specified
effluent
limits
for
BOD~and total suspended solids
discharged
from
lagoon
two
to
the
South
Fork
of
the
Sangamon
River.
(Stip.
7—9).
The
Company
and
the
Agency
have
also
agreed
that:
“...once
the
wastewater
from
the
mill
is
tied—into
the
Taylorville
Sanitary
District,
lagoon
two
will
be
drained
by
pumping
the
liquid
to
irrigate
the
vegetative
growth
in
lagoon
one.
After
lagoon
two
is
drained,
it
will
be
covered,
fertilized
and
a
vegetative
growth
established
within
one
year
in
the
same
manner
as
used
for
lagoon
one,
unless
the
Respondent
demonstrates
that
it
would
cause
an
arbitrary
and
unreasonable
hardship
to
comply
with
this
time
limitation.
If
this
abandonment
plan
for
lagoon
two
proves
infeasible,
impractical
or
is
found
to
cause
a
violation of the
Act
or regulations, then the Parties
agree to meet and discuss alternative solutions.”
(Stip.
Q).
41—154
Additionally, the Company
has agreed to pay a
stipulated penalty
of $10,000.00 and to obtain all
the requisite permits
necessary to
accomplish the measures delineated
in the proposed settlement
agreement.
(Stip. 10),
At the hearing, various witnesses testified pertaining to their
views of the proposed Stipulation.
Mr. John
Musatto,
an
“environ-
mentalist” and ex—employee
and stockholder
of Georgia—Pacific,
testified that fishing and
trapping activities
in
the South Fork of
the Sangamon River had been
adversely affected by
the activities of
either the Company or local
farmers.
(R.
27—28).
Mr. Musatto
expressed the opinion that
he thought “the settlement
is okay” but
could not understand why
matters took so
long.
(P.
29).
Mrs. Sandy McArdei testified
that her house is
a quarter mile
north of the Company’s lagoons
and she was upset
because she found
out this year that her land was appraised 10
less
because
it
~as
located near to the Company.
(R.
31).
She indicated that the
Company was “supposed to be dumping
lime”
in the lagoons
“to
take
care of the smell until they
hook on to the Sanitary
District”
and
indicated that the smell had not entirely cleared up after lime
was dumped into the lagoons.
(P.
31—33),
in response
to her
concerns about the delays involved
in this case, the
Assistant
Attorney General explained
the various activities which delayed
matters.
(R.
34—36),
Mr. Gary Merker,
a
resident of Taylorvilie, testified
that
“the settlement, as proposed,
to me sounds like a logical and
workable solution”.
(P.
38),
Mr. Tony Laurenzana,
a
Taylorville resident,
testified to the
effect that there were odor
problems during the summer
which affected
the prospective value of
nearby land~
(P.
41).
Mr.
Richard
Horder,
the
attorney
for the Respondent,
testified
to
present
the
Company’s
position
on
this
matter.
He stated
that
although
the
Respondent
didn’t
really know what
is
causing
the
odor,
there
are
about
25
to
30
people
who
improperly
Lied
into
the
Respondent’s
sewage
treatment
system.
(P.
45-46).
Mr.
Horder also
testified
that
most
of
the
delays
were
caused
by
factors
which
were
beyond
the
control
of
the
Company.
(P.
46—48).
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.
The Board finds
that the Respondent,
the
Georgia-Pacific Corporation,
has violated Rule
102 of Chapter 2~ ~.irPollution Control
Regulations,
Rules
402,
410(a), and 901 of Chapter
3:
Water
Pollution Control
Regulations,
and Sections 9(a),
12(a), 12(b),
and
12(f)
of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
The stipulated
penalty of
$10,000.00 will be assessed against the Respondent.
41—155
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
Respondent,
the
Georgia—Pacific
Corporation,
has
violated
Rule
102
of
Chapter
2:
Air
Pollution
Control
Regulations,
Rules
402,
410(a),
and
901
of
Chapter
3:
Water
Pollution
Control
Regulations,
and
Sections 9(a),
12(a),
12(b),
and
12(f)
of
the
Illinois
Environm~itai
Protection Act.
2.
Within
6U days of the date
of
this
Order,
the
Respondent
shall,
by
certified
check
or
money
order
payable
to
the
State
of
Illinois,
pay
the
stipulated
penalty
of
$10,000.00
which
is
to
be
sent
to:
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Fiscal
Services
Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
3.
The Respondent shall comply with all the terms and
conditions of the Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement filed
December
30, 1980,
which is incorporated by reference as
if fully
set forth herein,
4.
The Joint Motion
to
Correct a Clerical Error in
the
Stipulation
of Facts and Proposal for Settlement filed by the parties
on February
4, 1981
is hereby granted.
I,
Christan
L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board, here~ycertify
that the above Opinion
and
Order
were
adopted
on the
~
day
of
~,
1981 by a
vote
of
~
~
-
I ~
Christan
L. Moffet~,~lerk
Illinois Pol1ution~C&~trolBoard
41-456