ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
July 26, 1983
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 83—30
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,
)
)
Respondent.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,
)
Complainant,
V.
)
PCB 82—115
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
MR. JOSEPH DRAZEK, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
BAKER & HOSTETLER
(MR. JAMES
H,
RUSSELL, OF COUNSEL) APPEARED ON
BEHALF OF GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by W,J,
Nega):
This matter comes before the Board
on the September 15,
1982
Petition for
Hearing and Review of Permit Denial
filed by General
Motors Corporation
(GM)
in
PCB 82-115.
GM petitioned the Board
for a hearing on the denial by the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (Agency)
of GM~sapplication for a Construction
Permit for a treatment system for the discharges
at
the 001 and
003 outfalls at GMVS Danville foundry.
On March
8,
1983,
the Agency filed a Complaint against GM in
an interrelated proceeding
(i.e., PCB 83—30).
Count
I of the Complaint in PCB 83—30 alleged that, on
various specified dates between February,
1979 and March
8, 1983,
GM allowed effluents containing concentrations of suspended
solids,
oils,
fats and greases, chlorine residual, total
iron,
total
lead,
total
zinc, and mercury in excess of concentration
53-93
—2—
and loading limits specified in its NPDES Permit
to flow into
an
unnamed tributary of
the
Vermilion River from outfalls 001
(cooling water,
storm and ground water),
002
(storm and process
water), and 003
(storm and ground water)
in violation of 35
Iii.
Mm. Code 304.141(a) and 309.102 and Sections 12(a)
and
12(f)
of
the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(Act).
Count II alleged that GM allowed effluent discharges
to
contain excessive concentrations of oils
(on
6 specified
occasions between
August,
1979 and March
8,
1983 from outfall
001);
barium
and oils
(on 2
specified dates during December,
1980
and March,
1981
from
outfall
002);
and total
iron,
lead, barium,
manganese,
oils,
and zinc
(from February,
1979 until March
8,
1983 from outfall
003)
in
violation of
35 Ill. Mm.
Code 304.124 (a)
and Section
12(a)
of the Act,
Count
III alleged that,
on February
29,
1980,
GM allowed
effluent discharges
from outfall
001
to contain
a visible oil
sheen and settleable
solids which resulted in
the presence of
black-colored bottom deposits and a visible oil sheen in the
receiving stream,
downstream of the discharge location,
in
violation of
35 111, Adm.
Code 302.203, 304.105 and 304.106 and
Section 12(a)
of the Act.
A hearing on PCB 83-30 and PCB 82—115 was held on April
28,
1983.
The parties filed a Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement
in PCB 83—30 on May
6,
1983.
GM’s foundry, which manufactures iron castings for the
automotive
industry,
discharges effluents pursuant to NPDES
Permit No.
IL 0004138,
issued on June
30,
1975,
modified on
February
4,
1977 and on
May 19,
1977, reissued on December 15,
1978 and modified on May 15, 1981.
(See:
Exhibit A).
Although
flows from outfall
002 are
treated with the control equipment
installed pursuant to the variance granted by the Board
in PCB
76—205,
no treatment
is
presently provided for effluents dis-
charged from outfalls 001 and 003,
The Agency~sinvestigation of violations at outfall 002
indicates that these excursions were related to start—up problems
with the new treatment
system
and are unlikely to recur in the
future.
(Stip.
6—7),
Therefore,
no additional control measures
are necessary
at outfall
002.
(Stip.
7).
Prior to the initiation of enforcement proceedings
in PCB
83—30,
GM ~‘expressedwillingness to develop engineering plans for
a skimming/sedimentation tank and retention basin”
at outfall 003
by combining its flow with that of outfall 001.
(Stip.
12),
However,
the Agency denied GM’s permit application for this
system on August
11,
1982 in PCB 82—115.
(Stip,
12—13).
Subsequent technical and engineering discussions between the
parties ultimately led GM to submit a revised permit application
for a somewhat modified proposed treatment system.
(See Exhibit D).
This permit application
was received by
the
Agency on December
17,
1982 and the
Agency issued
the
requisite permit
(Agency
Permit
No.
1983—EB--1401)
on
January
17,
198.3.
(See:
Exhibit
C).
Accordingly,
GM
has indicated that it
intends
to
“dismiss”
its
permit
appeal
in
PCB B2~~i13. (See:
R.
6~-7;
and letter
to Clerk
dated
May
9,
198.3
ft on
Attorney
James
H.
Russell
The proposed
new
treatment
:~.yst.em will
replace
outfalls
001
and
003
with a
dischare
from
the
skimming/sedimentation
tank
(now
designed
as
outial:L
UO4)~ and
an
overflow
discharge
from
the
retention
lagoon
will
then
be
outfall
005,
Details
on
the
dis-
charges
from
these
outfal!s
have
been
delineated
in
the
proposed
settlement
agreement.
The
proposed
settlement
agreement
in
PCB
33—30
provides
that
GM
admits
the
violatione
a~iened
in
the
Complaint
and
agrees
to:
(1)
expeditiously
nor
runt
and
onetate
the
proposed
treatment
system
in
accordance
with
a
specified
compliance
plan
and
schedule;
(2)
appropriately
discharge
effluents
in
accord
with
applicable
NPDES
Permit
cond:Ltione
(including
discharges
from
outfalls
004
and
005);
and
(3)
pay
a
stipulated
penalty
of
$5,000.00.
(Stip.
13—21),
The
Board
has
previously
reserved
its
decision
in
this
case
pending
the
Governor’s
signature
on
HB
1326
pertaining
to
the
deposition of Board
penalties
Into
the Environmental
Protection
Trust Fund.
However,
on
July
25,
1983,
the respondent
filed a
Motion for Decision
which
:Lndioated
that
time
is
of
the
essence
because the
Respondent cannot nonstruot its
new
treatment
system
under
the agreed
con
It ante a~dodu~
a
,
nor
invoKe
the
construction
delay
provisions
of
~
3tipulation,
until
the
Board
accepts
the
proposed
settlement
agreement
(and
change
in
seasons may
occasion
unavoidable
construction
delays
if
the
time
constraints
are
not
met).
The
Respondent
has
also
stated
that
the
Agency
requested
that
the
penalty
be
paid
~ro the
sneciuiled
payee~
The
Board
finds
that
an
expeditious
daci tint
In
this
matter
is
necessary
so
that
construction
ma
proceed
on
sohedula
and
will
accept
the
proposed
penalty
provis:Lon
of
the
I~:ipelanion
as
originally
agreed
upon
by
the
parties.
In
evaluating
the
entorcenent
action
and
proposed
settlement
agreement
in
PCE
83—30~ the
Board
has
taken
into
consideration
all
the
facts
and
circumstances
in
light
of
the
specific
criteria
delineated
in
Section
33(c)
of
the
~ct
and
finds
the
settlement
agreement
acceptable
under
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
.103.180.
The
Board
finds
that
General
Motors
Corporation
has
violated
35
Ill,
Adm.
Code
302.203;
304,105;
304,106;
304.124(a);
304,141~
and
309.102
and Sections
12(a)
and
12(f)
of
the
Act,
GM
will
be
ordered to
follow
the
compliance
plan and schedule
set forth
in the
Stipulation in PCB
83~-30and to
pay
the stipulated
penalty of
$5,000.00,
The
Board
w.tll
dismiss
GM~s permit
appeal
proceeding
in PCB 82—115,
—4-.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings o~fact and
conclusions of law in this matter,
ORDER
It
is
the
Order
of the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
that:
1.
General Motors Corporation
has,
in PCB 83—30, violated
35 Ill. Adm.
Code 302,203;
304,105; 304,106; 304,124(a);
304,141
and 309.102 and Sections 12(a)
and 12(f) of the Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Act.
2.
Within 45 days of
the date
of this Order, General
Motors Corporation shall, by certified check or money order
payable to the State of Illinois and designated for deposit into
the Environmental Protection Trust Fund, pay the stipulated
penalty of $5,000.00 in PCB 83-30 which is
to be sent to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
3,
General Motors Corporation
shall
comply
with
all
the
terms and conditions of
the Stipulation and
Proposal for Settlement
in PCB 83—30 filed on May
6,
198:3, which is incorporated
by
reference as if fully set forth herein,
4.
The
permit
appeal
by
General Motors Corporation in
PCB 82—115 is hereby dismissed.
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED,
Board
Member
J.
Anderson
concurred,
I,
Christan L.
Moffett,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board, hereby
certify that the
above Opinion and Order
were adopted on the
~~day
of
~
________,
1983 by a vote of~~-
(~,
7
L
~t,iLd/
~‘
Christan
L. Mof~ett,C~±~k
Illinois Pollution Control Board
53-96