ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 29,

1974

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Complainant,

v.

)

CARUS CORPORATION,

a Delaware

Respondent.

Mr. Fredric J. Entin, attorney for Complainant.

Mr. Eugene W. Beeler,

Jr., attorney for Respondent.

INTERIM ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Dr. Odell)

The Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

filed a

Complaint against the Carus Corporation

(Carus)

on February

12,

1973.

An Amended Complaint was

filed March 9,

1973, and a

Second Amended Complaint was filed August

17, 1973.

The Third

Amended Complaint was filed September 14,

1973.

In this

Complaint,

the Agency

alleged

that:

1.

Respondent,

from August 31,

1970,

to September

14,

1973,

discharged effluent into

the

Little

Vermillion River from the

South Lagoon

of

its facility in violation of Section 12(a)

of

the

Environmental Protection Act

(Act).

2.

Respondent, from August 31,

1970,

to March

7,

1972,

operat-

ed

its

wastewater facilities

in

such

a manner as not to

remove

color

to below obvious

levels

from

the effluent which discharged

into the Little Vermillion Creek in violation

of

Rule

1,08(10)

(b)

(3)

of

the IllinoIs Sanitary Water Board Rules and Regulations

(SWB—14)

3.

Respondent,

from August

31,

1970,

to March

7,

1972,

operated its wastewater facilities

in a manner producing odor

in

violata.on of Rule

1.03(c)

of

SWB~i4.

4.

Respondent,

from March 7, 1972,

to September 14,

1973,

operated its wastewater facilities

in a manner allowing effluent

from the South Lagoon

to

contain visible oil and failed to provide

for removal of color and turbidity to below obvious levels in

violation of Rule 403 of Chapter

3: Water Pollution Regulations of

Illinois

(Chapter 3).

On

March 28,

1974,

a hearing took place in Ottawa,

Illinois~

The

parties,

for purposes of settlement only,

submitted a

Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement

(Stipulation).

In pertinent

part,

the

Stipulation stated:

12—423

---

—2—

1.

“Carus is presently engaged

in the manufacture of

industrial use chemicals,

including CAIROX potassium permanganate,

hydroquinone, and Mn28 manganese sulfate.

Carus also produces,

on a much smaller scale, several dry—mix chemicals of a proprietary

nature.

It employs 169 persons.

2.

“All water from the barometric condensors, equipment

cooling water, drinking fountain water, and water from the boiler

feed water station is discharged directly to the South Lagoon

which, in turn,

is designed to prevent the discharge of insoluble

manganese and suspended solids into the Little Vermillion River.

The South Lagoon is approximately 650 feet by 300 feet, has

a design

capacity of 1,500 gallons per minute, and discharges at the rate of

approximately 670 gallons per minute.

The South Lagoon and its

effluent are the subject of this Enforcement Action.

3.

“Carus has undertaken various process and maintenance

control improvements which were also expected to enhance the

quality of the South Lagoon effluent, some of which were internally

approved and begun prior to filing of this Enforcement Action by

the Agency.

4.

“The parties hereby stipulate and agree

to the following

special conditions which shall modify this proposal notwithstanding

any of the above terms and conditions:

(a)

Upon completion of the process and maintenance control

improvement projects, the parties anticipate that the

South Lagoon effluent will be within applicable

effluent standards effective as of the date of the

Board’s Order entered herein.

(b)

The parties will conduct an abbreviated hearing for

the sole purpose of submitting testimony to further

describe and clarify various technical aspects of

the process and maintenance control improvement

projects.

(c)

Carus agrees to remit $900.00 to the State of Illinois

within 35 days following the entry of the Order of the

Board in this case.

(d)

Approval by the Board of this proposal shall constitute

dismissal with prejudice of the Enforcement Action

herein with regard to the South Lagoon.

(e)

Should the Board fail to approve all of the terms of

this proposal, said proposal shall, at the election

of ~eitherparty, be held for naught and no admissions

or allegations contained herein shall serve

to pre-

judice any party in any subsequent hearing and decision

of this case.”

We are unable to accept the Stipulation for the following

12—424

---

—3—

reasons.

First,

the Special Conditions1

indicated as 4(c)

and 4(d)

above, represent mutually exclusive remedies.

Payment of a $900.00

penalty is predicated on violation of the Act or reg~ulations;dis-

missal implies that no violation has occurred.

Second, Respondent did not admit any violation of the Act and

Rules

(R-3)

and the evidence

(Exhibit No.

3)

regarding alleged

infractions

is

weak.

Since the installation of all pollution contro

equipment in January of this year, the American Public Health

Association’s measurements of color (APHA color) indicate possible

violation of Rule 1.08(10(b) (3)

of SWB-l4 and Rule 403 of Chapter

3

on January 17 and January 31, 1974.

Evidence for violations of odor

turbidity and visible oil was not made part of the Stipulation.

Third, Respondent stated, as part of the Stipulation, that

by the time of the Board’s adoption of this Order, Respondent would

be in compliance with all the effluent limitations of Chapter

3

See

4(a)

aboveJ.

The data submitted by Respondent does not give

us

sufficient assurance that such compliance

has been achieved.

Grab sample data (Exhibit No.

3)

indicate the level of BOD5 to be

above

4 mg/i on three occasions since January

1, 1974.

Lacking

information regarding the dilution ratio of the effluent we are un-

sure which standard under Rule 404 of Chapter

3

(e.

g.

4 mg/I

of

BOD5 or 10 mg/I BOD5)is applicable.

We remand this cause to the Hearing Officer for further pro-

ceedings.

Within 120 days of this Interim Order, either additional

hearings should be held or a new Stipulation should be entered to

clarify the

ambiguity

on which the Board’s

first objection is based

and to supply additional relevant information as a basis for re-

solving questions raised

by

the Board’s second and

third objections~

IT IS SO ORDERED

Mr. Marder abstained.

I, Christan

L. Moffett,

Clerk of

the

Illinois Pollution Control

Board, her~by

certify that the above Opinion and Ord~rwas adopted

on the~4~\1ayof

(r~

,

1974,

by a vote of

9’

to

0

q~stanL.Moft,~le~

12—425