EPA v. BRIDGE CITY, TX AND STATE OF TEXAS

Case summary

DATA SHEET: * VIOLATION(S) UPON WHICH THE ACTION IS BASED: THIS REFERRAL IS BASED ON NUMEROUS VIOLATIONS OF THE CWA, PRIMARILY INVOLVING BYPASSING THE TREATMENT WORKS. * PROPOSED RELIEF: REGION VI RECOMMENDS A BOTTOM-LINE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT OF $17,500 FOR A CIVIL PENALTY PLUS AN INJUNCTION PLACING THE CITY ON A CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND STIPULATED PENALTIES, IF A CONSENT DECREE CAN BE NEGOTIATED. * THE RECENT CONTACTS: THE MOST RECENT FACE-TO-FACT CONTACT WAS A MEETING HELD PURSUANT TO AN AO ON MARCH 31, 1988. * * SYNOPSIS: THE PERMITTEE, BRIDGE CITY, OWNS AND OPERATES A POTW IN ORANGE COUNTY, TEXAS. IT DISCHARGES MUNICIPAL WASTE INTO AN UNNAMED DITCH, THENCE TO COW BAYOU TIDAL IN THE SABINE RIVER BASIN. THE FACILITY HAS BEEN OPERATED BY THE CITY SINCE OCTOBER 1, 1986. (THE PERMIT REFLECTS THE CHANGE IN OPERATION, BUT THE DATE OF ORIGIANL ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT TO PERMIT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN JUNE 1985). PRIOR TO OCT 1986, ORANGE COUNTY WATER CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (WCID #3) RAN THE PLANT. THE VIOLATIONS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THIS REFERRAL ARE ALL VIOLATIONS WHICH OCCUR- RED AFTER THE CITY ASSUMED CONTROL OF THE FACILITY. * IN ADDITION TO EFFLUENT VIOLATIONS AND BYPASSES, BRIDGE CITY HAS VIOLATED AO, DKT NO. VI-86-1239. THAT ADMIN ORDER SET A CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FOR THE FACILITY. ALTHOUGH IT WAS ISSUED TO ORGANGE COUNTY, PRIOR TO ASSUMING CONTROL OF THE POTW. BRIDGE CITY KNEW IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE DEADLINES CONTAINED IN THAT PARTICULAR ORDER. * THE PLANS AND SPECS WERE DUE ON OCT 1, 1986, BUT WERE NOT SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE STATE AGENCIES FOR APROVAL UN- TIL JUNE 12, 1987. ON JUNE 17, 1987, THE CITY MET WITH EPA TO DISCUSS PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLIANCE. THE SCHEDULE INDICATED THAT THE CITY HAD PLANNED TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS IN MAY 1987, AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN UUNE 1987, AND INITIATE CONTRUCTION IN JULY 1987. THE CITY CONTINUED TO PLAN TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION ON OR AROUND THE JUNE 1, 1988 DEADLINE, EVEN THOUGH IT HAD ALREADY MISSED ITS PROPOSED SCHEDULE BY FAILINT TO SUBMIT PLANS AND SPECS ON TIME. ISSUANCE OF NEW SCHEDULE ORDER WAS DELAYED UNTIL THESE WERE FORMALLY APPROVED BY THE APPROPRIATE STATE AGENCIES. * FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLANS AND SPECS BY THE CITY WAS NOT ACHIEVED UNTIL DECEMBER 22, 1987. THE CITY WAS GIVEN AP- PROVAL BY THE FUNDING AGENCY TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR JAN- UARY 7, 1988. ON MARCH 1, 1988, A SHOW CAUSE ORDER (VI-88- 1030) WAS ISSUED. THE VIOLATIONS ADDRESSED WERE THE CITY'S FAILURE TO REPORT NUMEROUS RAW SEWAGE BYPASSES AND OVERFLOWS TO EPA, FAILURE TO PREPARE AND COMPLETE PLANS AND SPECS FOR CONSTRUCTION NECESSARY FOR PERMIT COMPLIANCE, FAILURE TO INITIATE AND COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION NECESSARY FOR PERMIT COMPLIANCE, AND FAILURE TO SUBMIT QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORTS. THE CITY'S REASONS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SCHEDULE, AS STATED IN THEIR RESPONSE TO THE AO AND AT THE SHOW CAUSE MEETING ON MARCH 31, 1988, WERE ITS DELAY IN ACCEPTING THE PRELIMINARY PLAN PROPOSED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY WCID #3, AS WELL AS THE DELAY IN OBTAINING STATE APPROVAL OF THE PLANS AND SPECS.

Defendants (1)

• BRIDGE CITY, TX AND STATE OF TEXASNamed in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (1)

• BRIDGE CITY OF

  260 RACHAL ST, BRIDGE CITY, TX, 77611

  Registry ID: 110010652748

Statutes cited

• CWA 309 — Violation of Existing AO
• CWA 301 — NPDES Discharge without a Permit

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• BRIDGE CITYentered 1989-11-21

  Primary law: CWA

  Federal penalty: $20,000

Timeline (9 milestones)

• 1988-04-26Enforcement Action Data Entered
• 1988-06-30Referred To Dept Of Justice
• 1988-09-26Returned To Region
• 1989-09-27Rereferred
• 1989-11-21Final Order Lodged
• 1989-11-21Final Order Entered
• 1989-11-21Complaint Filed With Court
• 1989-11-21Concluded
• 1990-08-14Enforcement Action Closed