ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
February
4,
1982
I
r.~LI
MOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
,
)
Complainant,
v.
)
PCI3
81—110
ROESCH,
INC.,
a foreign corporation,
Respondent.
MS.
CHRISTINE
ZEMAN,
ASSISTZ~NT ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
THE
COMPLAINANT
MR.
GORDON
MAAG,
ESO.,
APPEhRED
ON
BEHALF
OF
THE
RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.
D.
Dumelle):
This matter comes before the Board upon
a complaint filed
by the Illinois Environmental Protection (Agency)
on July
2,
1981 alleging violations of various rules of Chapter
3:
Water
Pollubion and various sections of the Environmental Protection
Act
(Act).
Hearing was held on
January
14,
1982 in Belleville,
Illinois at which only the parties and a reporter appeared.
A
Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement was entered as Joint
Exhibit #1 in
lieu of other evidence and argument.
Roesch,
Inc.
is
a Delaware corporation, duly licensed to
transact business in Illinois,
which operates an enamel
coating
facility located
at 100 North 28th Street
in Belleville,
St.
Clair County.
The facility discharges wastewater pursuant to
NPDES Permit Number 1L0000370 into an unnamed ditch which
is
tributary to Catawba Creek.
That permit expired by its own terms
on August 31,
1978, but continues in effect due to timely
reapplication and non-action by the Agency.
Beginning July
1,
1977,
it authorizes discharge from a single outfall, numbered
001.
However, based upon Roesch’s Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMR~s)and Agency computed concentration figures
(since the
DMR’s reported only the quantity discharged), the following
table indicates discharges
from four outfalls
(numbered 001—004)
at
levels
in violation of the permit
(Stip.
3—4):
,.r.~_
-,,-,~
—2—
Barium
C1~rcxnium1
Copper
Nickel
TSS2
pH
Date/Outfall
~j.
Avg.
/Max.
~
Avg.
/Max.
~y~g./M~x.
t’lin./Avg.
/Max.
NPDES
Permi~
4
Limitations
(rrr/l)
2.0
0.3
1,0
1.0
15.0
6
9
11/77
002
29135
0.5/0.5
1.5/1.7
1.4/1.4
261/265
4.0/4.0/4.0
11/77
003
11/19
512/497
12/77
All
5/5
1.5/1.5
461/456
1/78
002
20/25
0.5/0.5
1.6/2.0
1.4/1.5~
252/260
4.0/4.0/4.0
2/78
All
7/10
/0.4
1.5/1.4
482/499
4.0
3/78
002
18/20
0.4/0.4
1.5/1.6
1.5/1.5
250/268
3/78
003
12/19
/0.4
479/504
4/78
All
22/23
0.4/0.5
1.4/1,4
295/296
5/78
002
15/15
0.4/0.4
1.4/1.5
1.4/1.5
270/270
4.0/4.6
5/78
003
19/19
489/498
6/78
All
18/20
0.4/0.4
1.4/1.4
492/477
7/78
002
20/20
0.5/0.5
1.4/1.4
1.5/1,5
246/253
4.0/4.9
7/78
003
16/19
497/498
8/78
All
20/30
2.0/2.0
1.5/1.5
485/496
4.0/4.1/4.2
9/78
002
12/20
1.9/1.9
1,5/1.5
263/479
4.0/4.9
9/78
003
15/20
/1.2
461/493
9.2/9.3
10/78
All
13/21
1.4/1.6
1,4/1,6
476/498
1
Chromium concentrations are the trivalent form,
which, the
Board notes has now been deleted from the effluent standards
(see R76—21,
August 20,
1981) and has been replaced with
hexavalent and total chromium standards.
2
TSS
=
Total Suspended Solids
Permit limitations are expressed as mg/i (milligrams/liter)
4
except for pH
The Board notes that this standard has now been changed to
0.5 from 1.0
(see R76—21,
August 20, 1981)
Some of the average concentrations given are higher than the
maximum,
which, of course, cannot be true.
The Board cannot
determine whether this error is due to DMR inaccuracies,
Agency computations, or typographical errors.
However, in
no case do these discrepancies appear significant.
45—270
—3—
On
April
23,
1980,
Agency
grab
samples showed that Roesch
caused or allowed the discharge of the following effluent
concentrations
(in mg/l)
from outfalls numbered 002, 003,
and
004
at its facility
(Stip.
5):
B—i
B—2
B-3
Parameter
Outfall
002
Outfall_003
Outfall
004
Barium
(total)
14.0
Iron
(total)
450
23
Lead
(total)
1.5
Nickel
(total)
170,0
Total
Suspended
Solids
1700
520
pH
1.7
10.8
These effluent concentrations
in
the wastewater discharges
exceed by at least five times the numerical standard prescribed.
The Board notes
that
the
effluent
standard
for
lead
has
been
changed
from
0,1
mg/l
to
0.2
mg/l
since
the
date
of
this
complaint
such
that
the
violation
of
lead
discharge
would
now
be
7,5
times.
The
figures
in Water Pollution Rule
408(a)
for
each
parameter
and
outfall
are
as
follows’
Parameter
Outfall 002
Outfall_003
Outfall_004
Barium (total)
7
times
the
standard
Iron
(total)
225 times
11 times
the
the standard
standard
Lead
15
times
the
standard.
Nickel
(total)
170
times
the standard
TSS
113 times
34 times the
the standard
standard
On April
23, 1980,
Agency samples
from the drainage ditch
below Roesch’s outfall points
(“C—i”),
and from the Catawba Creek
downstream
(“C’-2” and “C-3”) of the confluence with the drainage
ditch,
show
the
following
levels
of chemical constituents to be
present:
Parameter
C—3
C—2
C—i
Copper
(total)
0.10
0,14
0.24
Iron
(total)
13,0
42.0
69.0
Lead
(total
0.2
Manganese
(total)
—
3,4
1.4
Nickel
(total)
2,2
7.0
12.0
Zinc
(total)
2,1
1,9
Fluoride
3.15
11,9
1.9
Sulfate
680.0
—
45—271
—4—
The
concentrations
for
the
constituents
set
forth
in
each
water
quality
sample
listed
above
exceed
the
limitations
of
Water
Pollution Rule 203(f)
(Stip.
6).
The stipulated facts further demonstrate that
Roesch
failed
to file proper DMR’s
pursuant
to
its
NPDES Permit in that it did
not file DMR’s including effluent concentrations since October 24,
1977,
and
did
not
file DMR’s in accordance with the
permit
schedule
since
Decamber,
1978
(Stip. 8).
The
NPDES
Permit
also required
that Roesch
construct
pre-’treatment
works
or
treatment
works
to
achieve
compliance
with
final
effluent
limitations
or
to
divert
its
discharges
by
July
1,
1981
(Stip.
8).
Such
construction
or
diversion
was
not
accom-
plished
by
that
date.
Finally,
the
stipulation
indicates
that
discharges
from
Roesch’s facility caused environmental harm
(Stip. 9).
On July
1.1,
1980, the
Agency
received complaints from nine residents
downstream of the Roach facility on Catawba Creek, complaining
that water from the Creek had been used
on
two residents’ gardens,
and
that the water
had
destroyed the vegetables
growing
therein.
On July 17, 1980,
Agency
Field Office Specialist, Nick Mahlandt,
inspected Catawba Creek and observed brown coloration in the
discharge
from
Roesch
and
on
into
Catawba
Creek.
In
following
up
the
incident,
the
Agency
learned
that
two
downstream
residents
suffered
a
tanporary
skin
rash
from
contact
with
Catawba
Creek
Water
as
they
watered
their
garden.
Further,
on or about June 1, 1980, and continuing until
the filing of the Complaint in this action, Roesch discharged
contaminants from its facility to Catawba Creek in such manner
as to create a nuisance
and
render
such
waters
harmful
or detri-
mental or injurious to public health, safety or welfare, or to
domestic, agricultural, recretational, or other legitimate uses,
or to livestock, wild animals, birds, fish, or other aquatic
life
in
that
water
from
Catawba
Creek
caused
garden
plants
to
wilt
and die, caused
rashes and a burning sensation to those
utilizing such waters, and unreasonably interfered with the use
and enjoyment of one’s
property.
Based
upon
these
facts
and
admissions
made
by
Roesoh
in
the
Proposal
for
Settlement,
the
Board
finds
that
Roesch:
1.
Caused
or
allowed
water
pollution
by
exceeding
the
effluent limitations of its NPDES
Permit
and
of
Rule 408(a) of thapter 3:
Water Pollution, thereby
also violating Rule 901 and Sections 12(a) and (f)
of the Act;
2.
Discharged wastewater from three outfalls after July 1,
1977,
which
discharges were
not
authorized by its
NPDES Permit, thereby violating Water Pollution
Rule 901 and Sections 12(a)
and (f) of the Act;
S
P
aa
3.
Exceeded
the
effluent
limitations
of
Water
Pollution
Rule
408(a)
in excess of five times
the standard
from its outfalls
indentified
as
002,
003 and 004,
thereby violating Water Pollution Rules
408(a),
410(c)
and Section 12(a) of the Act;
4
Caused or allowed the drainage ditch into which it
discharged and Catawba Creek to exceed the Water
Quality Standards of Chapter
3, thereby violating
Water Pollution Rule 402 and Section 12(a)
of the
Act;
5.
Failed to report concentration on its DMR’s and
failed to submit timely DMR’s
as required by its
NPDES Permit in violation of Water Pollution Rules
501(c) and 90? and of Section 12(f)
of the Act;
6.
Failed to construct pre—treatment or treatment works
or to divert its discharges
so as
to achieve its
final
effluent limitations by July 1,
1977 as required
by its NPDES Permit in violation of Water Pollution
Rule 901 and Section 12(f)
of the Act; and
7.
Caused or allowed the discharge of contaminants so
as to cause water pollution
in violation of Section
12(a)
of the Act.
The Board notes that the extent of violation is based upon
the law at the time of violation and would be affected by sub-
sequent changes
in the
law.
However, Roesch has stipulated
to these violations and the changes are not of substantial
consequence given the gross nature
of the violations.
Therefore,
the Board need not reach the question of the applicable
law.
The Proposal for Settlement of this matter includes a
cease
and desist order,
co—operation between Roesch and the
Agency as to Roesch’s obligations under its NPDES permit,
and
a penalty of $10,000 which is
to be paid in ten monthly install-
ments.
However, no date is given for the first payment.
Therefore,
the Board will order that the first payment he made
on or before
April
1,
1982 and the subsequent payments he made
on or before the first of each subsequent month.
Having
been
fully
apprised
of
the
facts
and
circumstances
of
this
case,
and
noting
in
particular
that
Roesch
has
now
begun
operation
of
a
pre—treatment
facility
which
should
abate
past problems and insure that these problems do not recur,
the Board finds that the Proposal
for Settlement
is acceptable
under
Procedural
Rule
331
and
that
the
penalty
is
necessary
to
aid
in
the
enforcement
of
the
Act.
The
Board finally notes
that
the Stipulation and Proposal
for
Settlement
of
this
matter
is
quite
thorough
and
could
serve as a model
for the type of stipulation which the Board
envisions
under
its
settlement procedure.
45—273
—6—
This Opinion constitutes the Board~sfindings of fact
and conclusions
of law
in this matter,
ORDER
1.
Roesch,
Inc..,
is found
to have violated Rules
402,
408(a),
410(c),
501(c) and 901 of Chapter 3~ Water
Pollution and Sections
12(a)
and
(f)
of the Environ-
mental Protection Act.
2,
Roesch,
Inc.,
shall pay
a penalty of $10,000, which
shall
be
paid
in payments of $1,000 per month
for ten
consecutive months,
The first payment shall be made
on or before April
1,
1982 and subsequent payments
shall be paid on or before the first day of each
subsequent month,
Payment shall
be by certified
check
or money order payable to the State of Illinois
and sent to~
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
3.
Roesch,
Inc.,
shall otherwise comply with all the
terms and conditions of the January 21,
1982 Stipulation
and Proposal for Settlement in this matter which is
hereby incorporated by reference as
if
fully
set
forth
herein,
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan
L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board,
hereby certify
hat
he above Opinion and Order
day ~
1982 by a
Illinois Poluti.
Board
45—274