ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November 7, 1974
STUDENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS,
J.E. DLJNW000Y and L.J. STONE,
)
Complainants,
PCB 73-439
vs.
WEDRON SILICA DIVISION, DEL MONTE
PROPERTIES COMPANY,
)
Respondent.
Mr. Ben A. Rich, Attorney, on behalf of Complainants;
Mr. Michael T. Regan, Attorney, on behalf of Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Seaman):
On October 16, 1973, Complaint was filed against Wedron Silica, charging therein
violation of Sections 12(a) and 12(b) of the Illinois Environmental Protection
Act and Rules 404(a), 405 and 903(a) of Chapter 3 of the Pollution Control Board
Rules and Regulations.
Respondent owns and operates a silica sand mining and processing facility
located near the Fox River in Wedron, County of LaSalle, Illinois. Respondent
employs approximately 135 people and has been in operation since 1911.
Complainants charge that from April 1, 1973 to the date of the Complaint,
Respondent discharged into the Fox River effluents significantly in excess of
the limits imposed by Rules 404(a) and 405. Complainants further charge that
Respondent does not hold a permit.from the Agency for the discharge of allegedly
violative effluent in violation of Section 12(b) of the Act and Rule 903(a).
A public hearing was held in this matter on May 2, 1974. The sole action
taken at that hearing was the admission of a Stipulation And Proposal For
Settlement agreed to between the parties. The Board found that document unacceptable
in that Paragraph 10 of the Proposal For Settlement, wherein the parties agreed
that the complaint shall be dismissed should the provisions of the Proposal
For Settlement be approved by the Board, misconstrues the legal effect of a
Board dismissal. On October 1, 1974, the parties filed an Amended Stipulation
which cured that defect. Since the Amended Stipulation contains all of the
relevant evidence before the Board, it is set out in full as follows:
AMENDED STIPULATION AND PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT
Now come the complainants, J.E. Dunwoody, L. J. Stone, the Students for
Environmental Concerns, and the respondent, Wedron Silica Division, Del Monte
Properties Company, and hereby stipulate, for settlement purposes only, pursuant
to Rule 333 of the Procedural Rules of the Pollution Control Board, that the
following statements and undertakings form the basis of a mutual agreement
between the parties relating to the above entitled enforcement action.
14—351
-2—
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. That J. E. Dunwoody and L. J. Stone are residents of the State of Illinois,
having an interest in the Fox River and its environs, and that the additional
complainant, Students for Environmental Concerns, is an organization concerned
with the preservation of the environment and having its principal office in
Champaign, Illinois.
2. The respondent, Wedron Silica Division, Del Monte Properties Company,
owns and operates a silica sand mining and processing plant located near the
Fox River in Wedron, Illinois.
This Wedron Facility employs approximately one hundred thirty-five people
at said sand plant and the plant has been in continuous operation since approxi-
mately 1911.
3. That prior to this time the complainants have. filed theabove case
with the Pollution Control Board of the State of Illinois, which complaint alleges
that •on or about April 1, 1973, and at various times thereafter, there occurred
certain discharges into the Fox River allegedly in violation of the applicable
regulations of the Pollution Control Board of the State of Illinois.
4. That these alleged effluents complained of could tend to cause the
discharge into the Fox River of fecal coliform and suspended solids. The com-
plainants have caused certain tests and analyses to be run and the results of these
tests and analyses indicate that the concentrations of these respective parameters
are as follows:
Illinois
Large
Small
Small
Parameter
State
Orifice
Orifice
Pipe
Limit
Orifice
Fecal Coliform
400/ml.
l,700Jml.
O/ml.*
25/ml.*
Suspended Solids
37 mg/l.
90 mg/l.
8 mg/l.~
202 mg/1.*
*Average of 2 samples.
The total flow rate from the combined discharge as well as the flow rate to
be apportioned among the three pipes is unknown and unascertainable, for the reason
that there have been subsequent modifications in the system, and for the reason
that the plant was not in operation at the time that said samples were collected.
5. The three pipes referred to in the testing results are as follows:
(1) -36’s concrete pipe. The primary use is to carry water from the old mill
drain bins to the river pump sump. Usually four drain bins are pumped full of
sand during each shift of mining. During pumping overflow water from the bins
flows to the drain. During and after pumping drainage from the bins continues
to flow to the drain. This latter flow varies as time passes but never stops even
after a weekend.
14—352
—3-
The indirect cooling water from the Riley boiler stokers and fans also enters
this drain. A floor drain in the area of the boiler feed pumps and deaerating
heater also discharges into the drain.
At the time of testing the overflow from two septic tanks serving the
change house was chlorinated prior to discharge to this drain. This system
was installed in 1968. under Permit No. l968-FA-504 issued by the Sanitary Water
Board. This septic flow has been removed from this discharge completely by modifi-
cations during the pendency of this proceeding, pursuant to Construction Permit
No. l974-FB-l57, obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) -8” tile. This drain handles indirect cooling water from the B & W
coal stokers and fans. This water is continuous even though the boiler is
occasionally shut down on a Sunday. A floor drain in the boiler room area also
discharges to this drain but is normally dry.
(3)
—
8” tile. The water in this drain comes from a sump pump located in the
ash handling elevator pit at the boiler house. Its intermittent operation
depends on rainfall, the ground water table, and some water from the boiler ash
bins.
Prior to about 1958 all water was discharged directly to the river. At that
time the present sump and a pump were installed to pump the effluent directly
to a settling pond. Water from this pond flowed directly to the river. In the
fall of 1966, the present pump house was installed next to the river sump and the
original pump removed. In 1972 and 1973 a fine sand reclaim system was installed
to recover sand from the water prior to adding a flocculant and this discharged
to a settling pond. Part of the settling pond water is recycled and the balance
is allowed to overflow to Buck Creek. This latter system was installed and
is operated under Water Pollution Control Permit No. l973-EB-l4l9 of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
During the period of time on or about April 1, 1973, the three pipes described
above emptied into a sump which is the subject of this proceeding. A pump
located in this sump carried the combined discharge into the central treatment
facility of the Wedron plant. This pump however had a seal which required water
in order to operate. At or about the above described time this water was
supplied to the pump seal from the main process water supply of the respondent
plant. When the plant was not in production, such as on all Sundays and some
Saturdays, this supply of water to the pump seal was not available, and therefore
the pump was inoperable.
The testing samples referred to above were taken on a Sunday, at which time
the plant was not in process operation and at which time as described above
the pump in question did not have a supply of seal water.
This problem has since been remedied by the addition of a separate water
supply for the pump seal. As a result the sump pump operates independent of
plant production and is thus free to pump on a continual basis.
14—353
—4-
All parties to this proceeding have agreed that the covenants and
agreements contained herein will adequately protect the Fox River and its
environs with respect to the discharge in question.
By reason of the facts set out herein the parties are unable to determine
or assess the impact on the public resulting from the alleged violation;
however, Wedron avers and states that there are no discharges to the Fox River
from the aforementioned sump at this time.
WHEREFORE:
1. Wedron agrees to install and construct a system that modifies the
existing pumping system which has one 8 inch pumping discharge line, by installing
a dual pumping system having two 10 inch discharge lines, in such a manner that
either~pump be float—controlled and each pump have the individual capacity to
transfer the combined effluents to a settling system. This modification removes
the existing 8 inch pipeline which was laid on the river bank, by installing
the two new 10 inch pipes across a new bridge over the railroad from this location.
The terms of these modifications are contained in engineering drawings,
marked Exhibit 1 (composed of 3 pages) attached hereto and made a part hereof.
The attached exhibit, part of a Construction Permit Application, was received by
the Illinois EnvirOnmental Protection Agency March 25, 1974 for their approval.
2. Wedron agrees to rebuild the existing pump house located adjacent to
the earlier referenced sump in the following manner: Re-sheet it with a painted
metal exterior covering in a color compatible with the surroundings.
3. Wedron agrees to resurface a sump and a pump house base to achieve an
appearance compatible with the surroundings.
4. J. E. Dunwoody and L. J. Stone and the Students for Environmental Concerns,
complainants herein, reconiiiend that no monetary penalty be assessed by the Board
in this proceeding.
5. It is anticipated that the various aspects of the project can be
completed within the following guidelines. This time table assumes that the
construction permit, which has already been applied for, will be granted, and
further assumes thatLthe Board order approving this settlement will be handed down
in time sufficient that Wedron will have good construction weather and season
available to it for the proposed work.
The installation and connection of the additional pumping pipes and necessary
concrete work installations, including the modifications to the pump house,
should be completed within two months after clearance for the project by the Board
and by the Agency.
The bridge over the railroad tracks and its related structures should be
completed within two months after the receipt of the necessary bridge steel,
It is agreed and understood that Wedron faces a potential problem on the
delivery date of this bridge steel, but Wedron hereby agreesto exercise good faith
efforts to obtain early delivery of bridge steel.
14
—
354
—5—
6. The total anticipated cost of the above described modification is
approximately one hundred thousand dollars. This sum has already been
appropriated for these purposes by the management of Wedron. Approximately
thirty thousand dollars of the above mentioned sum is allocated to the
structures immediately adjacent to the river, these being the pump, the sump,
the pump house improvements and the elimination of the 8 inch pipe.
7. Wedron agrees that it shall post a performance bond in the amount of
twenty-five thousand dollars running to the State of Illinois to insure its
compliance with this proposed settlement stipulation, in the event that this
stipulation should be approved by the Board.
8. The Pollution Control Board shall retain continuing jurisdiction of
all matters arising out of this stipulation.
9. Either party shall have the right to appeal from any decisions of the
Pollution Control Board so arising in which the provisions of the Environmental
Protection Act shall govern.
10. Should the Pollution Control Board fail to approve all of the terms
of this stipulation, the stipulation shall be held for naught and no admissions
or allegations shall prejudice any party in the hearing and decisions of the
case; provided, however, that this agreement shall not self-destruct in the
event that the only modification made by the Pollution Control Board with
respect to this settlement agreement would be a change in the monetary amount
of the aforementioned performance bond.
Dated at Ottawa, Illinois this 24th day of September, A.D. 1974.
We note that nowhere in the Stipulation does Respondent admit violation;
nor can violation be found from the facts stated. Since a violation cannot be
found, a penalty cannot be assessed. However, the parties are agreed that the
proposal for settlement will adequately protect the Fox River and its environs
with respect to the alleged discharges, and there are no further discharges
from the sump.
We are disposed to accept the settlement proposal. Respondent has
committed itself to a $100,000.00 program of improvements. The necessity for
Agency permits and the $25,000.00 performance bond will provide sufficient
safeguards to insure that Respondent’.s operation will be in compliance.
Complete compliance by Respondent is expected according to the time-frame of
Paragraph 5 of the Proposal For Settlement; in no event shall actual compliance
be achieved later than one year from the date of this Opinion.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law of
the Board.
IT IS
THE
ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:
1. Respondent shall comply with the agreements stated in the Proposal
For Settlement portion of the above Stipulation And Proposal For Settlement.
14
—
355
-6-
2. Respondent shall notify the Agency of any anticipated delays in its
project completion schedule.
3. Respondent shall, within 35 days from the date of this Order, post a
performance bond in a form satisfactory to the Agency in the amount of $25,000.00,
guaranteeing compliance with the orders herein provided.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Con~’olBoard,
certify that the above Opinion and Order was ad pted on this
‘7 1
day of ~
,
1974 by a vote of
~
14
—
356