ILLINOIS
    POLLUTION
    CONTROL
    BOARD
    August
    15,
    1972
    PACKAGING
    CORPORATION
    OF
    AMERICA,
    a
    Corporation
    v.
    )
    PCB
    71-352
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION
    AGENCY
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION
    AGENCY
    v.
    )
    PCB
    72-10
    PACKAGING
    CORPORATION
    OF
    AMERICA,
    a
    Corporation
    )
    OPINION
    OF
    THE
    BOARD
    (by
    Mr.
    Dumelie)
    This
    opinion
    is
    in
    support
    of
    the order
    adopted herein
    on
    August
    8,
    1972.
    The
    case
    is
    now
    a
    consolidation
    of
    two actions.
    The
    first
    (PCB
    71-352)
    is
    a
    petition
    for variance
    and
    the
    second
    (PCB
    72-10)
    is
    an
    enforcement
    action.
    The
    petition
    seeks
    a variance
    from
    Section
    12(a)
    and 12(b) of
    the
    Environmental
    Protec—
    tion
    Act and
    any regulations
    thereunder
    for
    such
    time
    as
    is
    necessary
    to
    install
    a solids
    separation
    system
    and primary
    clarifier
    needed
    to bring
    the
    Packaging
    Corporation
    of
    America
    Quincy
    paper
    board
    mill
    into
    compliance.
    Subsequent
    to filing
    the
    petition
    the
    Agency
    filed
    an
    enforcement
    action
    alleging
    that
    Packaging
    Corporation
    of America
    (PCA),
    on six
    separate
    dates,
    violated
    Section
    12(a) of
    the
    Act and also
    Rules
    1. 05-5,
    1. 05-7,
    1. 05-8,
    1.
    05-10(a)
    and
    (h) and
    3.
    01-10(b) of
    the
    Illinois
    Sanitary
    Water
    Board
    Rules
    and Regulations
    SWB-13
    Water
    Quality
    Standards
    for
    the Mississippi
    River
    between
    Illinois
    and
    Missouri.
    Partial
    hearing
    on
    the
    consolidated
    cases
    was
    held
    on
    May
    15,
    1972.
    On July
    10,
    a
    Stipulation
    of
    Facts
    and
    Proposed
    Settlement
    was
    filed
    by
    the parties.
    Therein,
    PCA
    enumerates
    its
    partially
    completed
    and proposed
    abate-
    ment
    program
    which program
    has
    been
    accepted
    by
    the
    Agency.
    Also
    indicated
    are
    the results
    of two
    26-day
    composite
    samples
    taken
    from
    locations
    immediately
    prior
    to
    flow
    in both
    the
    Number
    4 and
    Number
    6
    discharge
    lines.
    For the
    Number
    4
    line
    the
    effluent
    contains
    436
    mg/i
    BOD
    and 1916
    mg/i
    suspended
    solids;
    for
    the
    Number
    6 line
    the
    effluent
    contains
    633
    mg/i
    BOD
    and
    2219 mg/i
    suspended
    solids.
    5—
    137

    -2-
    Those
    BOD levels
    for
    the
    Numbers
    4
    and
    6
    lines
    are
    respectively
    two
    and three
    times
    more
    concentrated
    than
    for
    raw
    sewage.
    The
    suspended
    solids
    levels
    are
    respectively
    around
    eight
    and nine
    times
    more
    concentrated
    than for
    raw
    sewage.
    The
    total
    flow
    from
    the
    two outfalls
    is
    3, 807, 000
    gallons
    per
    day.
    Using
    the
    flow
    and
    concentration
    figures
    given
    in the
    stipulation
    of facts
    and
    the
    accepted
    population
    equivalents
    (one lb.
    of
    BOD per
    day equals
    six persons;
    one
    lb.
    of
    suspended
    solids
    per
    day equals
    five
    persons)
    the
    strength
    of the
    dis-
    charge
    can
    be
    computed.
    On
    a BOD basis,
    the
    PCA
    effluent
    is
    equivalent
    in
    deoxy-
    genating
    effect
    to the
    untreated
    ~rastes
    of
    109, 560
    persons.
    On
    a
    suspended
    solids
    basis,
    the
    PCA
    effluent
    is
    equivalent
    to
    the
    untreated
    wastes
    of
    338,
    000 people.
    Group
    Exhibit
    1,
    stipulated
    to
    by
    PCA
    contains
    a lengthy
    memo
    prepared
    by
    the
    Agency
    which summarizes
    five
    inspections
    made
    during
    1971.
    The
    July
    20,
    1971
    narrative
    states,
    ~tThere
    was
    a large
    deposit
    of paper
    pulp
    sludge
    in the
    river
    downstream
    from
    outlet
    #6
    at
    the
    time
    of
    this
    survey.
    Also it
    was
    noted
    that
    the
    river
    was
    becoming
    silted
    in
    with paper
    pulp
    sludge
    near
    the
    #6
    outlet
    (p. 6).
    The
    entries
    for this
    same
    date
    quantify
    the
    bottom
    deposits
    mentioned
    above.
    On
    p.
    8
    of the
    memo
    the
    following
    appears,
    A large
    mass
    (approximately
    30
    ft.
    by
    60
    ft.
    )
    of
    accumulated
    grey paper
    pulp
    solids
    were
    observed
    just
    downstrear
    from
    #6
    outlet
    sewer,
    This
    effluent,
    without
    question,
    must
    be
    having
    a
    deleterious
    effect
    upon
    Mississippi
    River
    oxygen
    levels,
    upon
    bottom
    organisms
    (henthos)
    and upon the
    aquatic
    community
    in
    its
    many
    aspects.
    The
    Stipulation
    (Par.
    27) speaks
    of
    environmental
    effects
    as
    follows:
    The
    Quincy
    mill
    discharge
    has
    its
    principal
    harmful
    effects
    upon
    the
    recreational
    and
    aesthetic
    values
    of
    the
    Mississippi
    River;
    while
    the
    oxygen
    demand
    piaced
    on
    the
    river
    may tend to inhibit
    advanced
    forms
    of aquatic
    life
    in
    a limited
    section
    of
    the
    river,
    removal
    of
    the
    Quincy
    milUs
    effluent
    will
    not,
    in
    and of
    itself,
    materially
    assist
    aquatic
    development
    in the
    Mississippi
    River.
    (Emphasis
    added)
    We
    note that
    the
    Stipulation
    makes
    no reference
    to
    any program
    for
    removal
    of
    the
    existing
    sludge
    deposits.
    We
    suggest
    that
    such
    a program
    be
    seriously
    con-
    sidered
    at the
    present
    time.
    Other
    references
    exist
    in the
    memo
    to
    color
    caused
    by
    PCA.
    On
    p.
    5
    ~the
    river
    was
    noted
    to
    be
    red
    in
    color
    extending
    from
    its
    shoreline
    to
    approximately
    30
    ft.
    to
    40
    ft.
    out
    into
    the
    river,
    and
    some
    200
    ft.
    to
    300
    ft.
    downstream
    from
    the
    location
    of
    outlet
    #4.
    The
    color
    is
    explained
    as
    ‘due
    to
    the presence
    of iron

    —3—
    oxide
    which was
    being
    used to
    color
    the
    candy bar
    package
    cardboard
    which
    was
    being
    made..
    .“
    On the
    same
    June
    28,
    1971 visit
    and also
    on
    p.
    5
    in
    the
    memo,
    ‘A trail
    of
    grey-white
    colored
    waste
    (from
    #6
    outlet)
    was
    noted
    to be trailing
    over
    one-fourth
    mile
    downstream
    from
    the
    industry.”
    On
    May
    1,
    1960
    the
    Sanitary
    Water
    Board
    issued
    Technical
    Release
    20-li
    which
    required
    industrial
    treatment
    of
    effluents
    that
    might
    form
    sludge
    deposits
    or
    floating
    debris
    or
    color.
    Effective
    July
    25,
    1964,
    the
    Illinois
    Sanitary
    Water
    Board
    adopted
    the
    regul
    tion
    designated
    as
    SWB-4
    for
    the
    Mississippi
    River
    between
    Missouri
    and Illino:
    which
    required
    the
    equivalent
    of primary
    effluent
    treatment
    for
    industries.
    In
    1967
    the Water
    Board
    adopted
    SWB-l3,
    which re-affirmed
    the
    primary
    treatmen
    requirement
    of
    SWB-4
    and went
    even further
    by
    requiring
    secondary
    treatment
    or
    its
    equivalent
    on or
    before
    December,
    1982.
    By
    amendment
    dated
    March,
    1971,
    the
    i982
    deadline
    was
    advanced
    to
    December
    31,
    1973.
    Thus,
    since
    1960
    there
    has
    been
    in existence
    requirements
    of
    at
    least
    primary
    treatment
    on
    the
    Mississippi.
    PCA,
    which acquired
    the
    Quincy
    mill
    in
    1965,
    has
    never
    met
    that
    requirement.
    The
    parties,
    in the
    Stipulation,
    have
    agreed
    to
    a
    $3000
    penalty
    for
    the
    violations
    alleged
    in the
    complaint.
    We
    cannot
    accept
    that
    low
    an
    amount
    in
    a
    case
    this
    serious.
    First,
    the
    strength
    of
    the
    effluent
    has
    been
    exceedingly
    high0
    Second,
    the
    strictures
    against
    sludge
    deposits,
    color
    and
    floating
    material
    have
    been
    violated.
    Third,
    PCA
    has
    not
    shown
    due
    diligence
    in solving
    its
    problem.
    Absolutely
    nothing
    was
    done
    by
    the
    company
    until
    1971
    which
    was
    six years
    after
    PCA
    acquired
    the
    Quincy
    mill.
    We must
    charge
    the
    company
    with
    notice
    of
    the
    primary
    treatment
    requirement
    which
    began
    in
    1960.
    SWB-4
    and SWB-l3
    were
    both
    duly
    adopted
    regulations
    pursuant
    to
    statute.
    We find
    no
    justification
    in
    this
    case
    for their
    not
    being
    followed
    well before
    1971.
    The
    fact
    that
    PCA
    was
    not
    personally
    notified
    of
    the
    law
    is
    no
    excuse
    for
    their
    lack
    of effort.
    The
    law
    was
    on
    the
    books
    and they were
    under
    a
    duty to find
    out
    what
    it
    said.
    No
    national
    corporation
    such
    as
    PCA
    would operate
    a plant
    such
    as
    this
    without de-
    termining
    the pertinent
    law for their
    plant.
    Inasmuch
    as
    the
    Stipulation
    and
    Proposed
    Settlement
    comes
    before
    us
    in
    a
    take-all-or-nothing
    form,
    we must
    reject
    it
    based
    upon
    the
    inadequacy
    of
    the
    penalty.
    In
    imposing
    a substantial
    penalty
    upon
    an untreated
    discharge
    (incidentally
    of
    about the
    same
    BOD strength)
    we
    said:
    To let
    the
    company
    off
    scot
    free
    would
    encourage
    others
    --
    and
    GAF
    itself
    --
    to be
    dilatory
    in the future.
    (GAF
    Corporation
    v.
    EPA,
    April
    19,
    1971,
    PCB
    71-11.
    5—
    139

    -4-
    We suggest that the parties re-negotiate and increase the penalty substantially
    or
    in the alternative conduct a full hearing on all the issues whereupon the
    Board
    will
    take
    the entire
    matter
    under
    advisement.
    This
    opinion
    constitutes
    the
    Board’s
    findings
    of
    fact
    and
    conclusions
    of
    law.
    Mr. Henss dissents.
    T, Christan L. Moffett,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,
    hereby
    certify
    the
    above Opinion was adopted
    on
    the,~‘~iay
    of
    August,
    1972
    by
    a vote
    of
    1’
    /
    •~
    Christan
    L.Moffett4~lerk
    Illinois
    Pollution
    Control
    Board

    Back to top