ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 12, 1979

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

v.

)

 PCB 78—134

NORTHERN PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY,

a Delaware corporation,

Respondent.

MS. LORETTA A. WEBER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF

OF THE COMPLAINANT.

MR. WILLIAM E. NELSON AND MR. DONALD

 R. OVERHOLT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW,

APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by Mr. Werner):

This matter comes before the Board on the May 10,

1978

 Complaint

brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

 (“Agency”).

After various preliminary pleadings were filed by both parties,

the

Agency filed a 16-count Amended Complaint on March 7,

 1979.

 ThIs

Complaint alleged that, on various specified occasions, the Company

discharged wastewater from its organic chemical plant near Morris,

Grundy County, Illinois into Aux Sable Creek and the Illinois River

which contained contaminants

 in excess of the standards established

in its NPDES Permit for BOD5, total suspended solids,

 COD,

 fecal

coliform, oil

 & grease,

 suspended

 solids, minimum and maximum

chlorine residual,

 pH, zinc and iron;

 and failed to comply with the

reporting requirements of its NPDES Permit by neglecting to monitor

 its effluents for zinc

 (twice

 a week),

 iron

 (once a week)

and

cyanide

 (once a month)

 and by failing to promptly notify the Agency

of its non-compliance with the requisite effluent standards

in

violation of Rules 404(b),

 404(f),

 405,

 408(a),

 408(b),

 501(a)

and

901 of Chapter

3:

 Water Pollution Control Regulations and Sections

12(a)

 12(b)

 and 12(f)

 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act

(“Act”)

 A hearing was held on June

6,

 1979.

 The parties filed a

Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement on June

7,

 1979.

The parties have stipulated that the Respondent’s wastewater

treatment facilities were initially in compliance with the Act,

 fell

out of compliance,

 and then came back into compliance.

 ~Stip. 23;

R.

 27).

 The parties have agreed that the Company was

 in substantial

35—3 1

—2—

compliance with its NPDES Permit for the time period before that

alleged in the Complaint and has been in substantial compliance since

December,

 1978.

 (Stip.

 19; See:

 discharge monitoring reports of

Exhibits N through

 Z; permits

 in Exhibits A,

F,

 and K;

 and permit

application and permit denial letter of Exhibits

 I and 3).

 Uowever,

solely for the purposes of the stipulation,

 the Respondent has

admitted all violations but denies that it:

 (1) discharged excessive

amounts of total dissolved solids and zinc during June,

 1978;

(2) failed to monitor its cyanide or iron levels during December,

 1977;

(3) failed to submit monthly non-compliance reports to the Agency

 (but

admits that it did not submit these reports in a timely fashion).

(Stip.

21)

The proposed settlement agreement provides that the Respondent

shall cease and desist from further violations,

 construct and/or

modify its wastewater treatment facilities in strict accordance with

Agency Permit No. 1979—EB—4550

 (see:

 Exhibit

 “AA”)

 and Agency Permit

No. l979-EB-4438

 (See:

 Exhibit

 “BB”), submit monthly progress reports

until the completion of construction, and pay a stipulated penalty of

$16,000

 (Stip.

 21—23)

 The Board,

 after evaluation of the

proposed settlement agreement in light of Section 33(c)

 of the Act

and Procedural Rule 331,

 finds the Stipulation and Proposal for

Settlement to be acceptable.

 The Board finds that the Respondent, the

Northern Petrochemical Company, has violated Rules

 404(b),

 404(f),

405,

 408(a),

 408(b), 501(a), and 901 of Chapter 3:

 Water Pollution

Control Regulations and Sections 12(a),

 12(b)

 and 12(f)

 of the Act.

Accordingly,

 the Respondent shall cease and desist from further

violations and pay the stipulated penalty of $16,000

The Board has also considered the NPDES Permit issues in light

of the decision by the U.S.

 Court of Appeals

 in Citizens for a Better

Environment v. EPA, No. 78-1042, ______F.

2d

____

 (7th Cir.

 1979),

and finds that the Board has competent jurisdiction over the subject

matter in the Amended Complaint pursuant to Sections 11(b),

 12(f)

and

13(b)

 of the Act and Board regulations established thereunder.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board that:

1.

 The Respondent has violated Rules 404(b),

 404(f),

 405,

408(a),

 408(b),

 501(a), and 901 of Chapter

3:

 Water Pollution Control

Regulations and Sections 12(a),

 12(b)

 and 12(f)

 of the Act.

—3—

2.

 The Respondent shall cease and desist from all further

violations.

3.

 Within 35 days of the date of this Order, the Respondent

 shall pay the stipulated penalty of $16,000

 Payment shall be by

certified check or money order payable to:

State of Illinois

Fiscal Services Division

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield,

 Illinois 62706

4.

 The Respondent shall comply with all the terms and conditions

of the Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement filed June

7,

 1979,

which is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

I, Christan

 L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, her~j~y~

 certify the abo e Opinion and Order were

adopted

the ________day

of

_______________,

 1979 by a

vote of

/T~J2th

Christan L. Moffet ~

 lerk

Illinois Pollution

 rol Board

35—33