ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April 26, 1979
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Complainant,
PCB 78—127
CITY OF GEORGETOWN,
a municipal
corporation,
Respondent.
Ms. Nancy J.
Bennett, Assistant Attorney General, appeared
on behalf of the Complainant;
Mr. Eugene Wright, Attorney,
appeared on behalf of the
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Young):
This matter comes before the Board on a complaint filed
on May 10,
1978, by the Environmental Protection Agency against
the City of Georgetown which alleged numerous violations of
water pollution provisions of the Environmental Protection
Act and Board regulations as well
as the terms and conditions
of Respondent’s NPDES permit.
The complaint alleged that on
specific dates, discharges
from the City of Georgetown sewage
treatment plant, the sewage treatment plant bypass, the
Seminary Street overflow and the Main Street sewer to the
waters of Illinois contained obvious color, turbidity, float-
ing debris,
floating solids and concentrations of fecal
coliform and ammonia nitrogen in violation of Rules 203(a),
203(f)
(ammonia nitrogen),
203(g), 401(c),
402,
403,
404(f) (ii) (c),
405 and 901 of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Regulations and
Section 12(a),
(b),
and
(f)
of the Act.
The complaint also
charged Respondent with discharging to waters of this State
untreated effluent in violation of Rule 602(c)
of Chapter
3
and Sections 12(a),
(b)
and
(f) of the
Act.
Furthermore,
the City of Georgetown was charged with operating its treat-
ment facility without direct supervision of a certified operator
in violation of Rule 1201 of Chapter
3 and Section 12(a)
of
the Act.
A hearing was held on February 15,
1979.
At that time,
a Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement was submitted for
approval by the Board.
No testimony was given during the
hearing.
33—37 9
—2—
The Respondent, City of Georgetown, Vermilion County,
Illinois, owns and operates
a sewage treatment plant which
accepts water from tie City~scombined sewer system and
discharges
to the Ellis Branch Creek,
This receiving body
is tributary to the Little Vermilion River and the Wabash
River.
On June
8, 1976, the City of Georgetown was placed
on restricted status.
Afterward, the City executed a State
Grant Agreement on July 26, 1976, but failed to submit
final
facility plans and specifications for anticipated improvements
as required by the agreement and consequently, the agreement
was rescinded.
In addition,
the State grant offer was
revoked on September 17,
1976, due to Respondent~sfailure
to accept the grant offer.
(Stip.
2-3,
8;
See Exh.
B and C.)
The City of Georgetown was issued NPDES permit No.
0022322
on June
30,
1977, which authorized discharges from the treat-
ment facility,
its bypass and the Seminary Street overflow
in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in
the NPDES permit,
However, on numerous occasions the
Respondent has caused or allowed the discbarge
of untreated
sewage from the STP bypass when the treatment facility was
overloaded
(181 days in the first ten months of 1977),
from the Seminary Street overflow and from the Main Street
sewer which flowed into drainage ditches tributary to the
Ellis Branch Creek, the Little Vermilion River and the
Wabash River.
(Stip.
2-3.)
The stipulation between the parties provided that the
discharges
from th-~Georgetown STP,
its STP bypass, the
Seminary Street overflow, and the Main Street sewer were
in violation of the Act and
Board regulations on specific
dates as charged in the complaint.
The parties also
stipulated that the discharges on certain dates were also
in violation of the terms and conditions of its NPDES permit
and Rule
901 of Chapter
3 and Sections 12(b)
and
(f)
of the
Act.
(Stip.
5—7.)
The parties also agreed in the stipulation that the
Georgetown sewage treatment plant was operating without the
direct supervision
of
an operator certified as competent by
the Agency from March
1,
1977, until June
22,
1978, which
violates Rule 1201 of Chapter
3 and Section
12(a)
of the
Act.
The stipulation
also
revealed that since June 20,
1978,
the City of Georgetown has hired a certified operator to
operate
its sewage treatment facility.
(Stip.
8,)
As
a result of negotiations, the parties have agreed
that
it would be in the best interests
of
the public and
the parties to settle this matter under the Board~s
Procedural Rule
331.
The Respondent, City of Georgetown,
33—380
—3--
has taken the initial steps to achieve compliance with the
terms and conditions of its NPDES permit and with the
applicable Board regulations.
Recently,
the Respondent had
submitted application for a grant to upgrade and improve
its
sewage treatment facility and for a sewage separation project
both anticipated for completion by 1982.
(Stip.
10.)
As part of the settlement, the parties agree that a
penalty in the amoint of $15,000.00 shall be imposed on the
City of Georgetown, of which Respondent shall pay the sum
of $1,000.00 within 35 days of this Order.
The parties
have agreed that the remaining $14,000.00 shall become pay-
able only upon failure of the Respondent to comply with the
provisions of this Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement
or of the Board Order approving this settlement.
The Board will accept the Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement entered into the record on February
15,
1979.
Respondent
is hereby found to have caused or allowed dis-
charges in violation of the terms and conditions of its NPDES
permit and Rules 203(a),
203(f)
(ammonia nitrogen),
203(g),
401(c),
402,
403, 404(f) (ii) (c),
405,
602(c), 901 and 1201
of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Regulations and Section 12(a),
(b) and
(f)
of the Act.
The Board will assess a penalty of
$15,000.00 on the City of Georgetown
as agreed upon by the
parties.
Respondent shall pay the sum of $1,000.00 within
35 days of this Order.
Payment of the remaining $14,000.00
shall be made only upon failure of the Respondent to actively
participate and complete each applicable requirement of the
construction grants program and other terms
in the settlement.
In assessing this penalty, the Board has considered the
application of each requirement of Section
33(c) of the Act
in relationship to the particular facts and circumstances in
this matter.
The Board has also considered the NPDES permit violations
by the City of Georgetown
in light of the decision by the
U.S.
Court of Appeals
in Citizens for a Better Environment
v.
EPA,
No. 78-1042, ________F.
2d
________
(7th Cir.
1979),
and
~T~ds that the Board has competent jurisdiction over the
subject matter in this complaint pursuant to Sections 11(b),
12(f)
and 13(b)
of the Act and Board regulations established
thereunder.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s
findings of
fact
and conclusions of law in this matter,
33—38 1
—4—
ORDER
1.
Respondent, City of Georgetown,
is found to have
caused or allowed the discharge of contaminants
to the waters
of Illinois in violation of the terms and conditions of NPDES
permit No.
0022322 and Rules 203(a), 203(f)
(ammonia nitrogen),
203(g),
401(c),
402,
403,
404(f) (ii) (c), 405,
602(c),
901 and
1201 of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Regulations and Sections
12 (a),
(b) and
(f)
of the Environmental Protection Act.
2.
Respondent, City of Georgetown,
shall be assessed
a penalty of $15,000.00 of which $1,000.00 shall be payable
by certified check or money order within
35 days of this
Order
to:
State of Illinois
Fiscal Services Division
Environmental Protection Agency
2201) Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
The balance of $14,000.00 shall become due only upon Respondent’s
failure to comply with any provision of the Stipulation and
Proposal for Settlement herein or the requirements of this
Board Order.
3.
The Respondent,
City of Georgetown,
shall comply
with all terms and conditions of the Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement entered into the record on February 15,
1979,
which
is
incorporated by reference as
if fully set forth
herein.
IT
IS
SO ORDERED.
Mr.
Jacob
D.
Dumelle
dissented.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby ceitify the above Opinion and Order
were
adopted
on
the
~
day of
_____________,
1979,
by
a
vote
of
3m/
-
Christan
L. Moffett,
rk
Illinois Pollution
ntrol Board
33—382