ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May

12, 1977

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

)

)

Complainant,

)

)

v.

)

P~B

76—134

)

)

GROVE

PLATING

COtWANT,

an

)

Illinois corpotation,

)

)

Respondent.

MS.

SUSAN

H

•

SHUMWAY,

ASSISTANT

A7ZORNEY

GENERAL,

APPEARED

ON

BEHALF

OF

COMPLAINANT;

MR.

BERTRAM

A.

STONE,

STONE,

PROGRUND

&

KOREY,

APPEARED

ON

BEHALF

OF

RESPONDENT.

OPINION

AND

ORDER

OF

THE

BOARD

(by

Mr.

Goodman):

This

matter

is

before

the

Board

on

a

Complaint

filed

May

7,

1976

by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) against

Grove Plating Company (Grove), an Illinois corporation.

The Agency,

in its three Count Complaint which was amended August 24, 1976,

alleges that Grove has violated Rules 701(a), 401(c),

408(a), 703(a),

and 953(a) of the Illinois Pollution Control Board’s Rules and Regu-

lations, Chapter 3:

Water Pollution

(Rules) and Section 12(a) and

12(b) of the Environmental Protection

Act

(Act).

The Agency alleges

these violations occurred through the operation of an electroplating

facility owned by Grove located in Fox River Grove, Mcffenry County,

Illinois.

The facility discharges industrial wastes containing

chromium, zinc, and cyanide to the public sewer system of the Village

of Fox River Grove

(Village) and thence through the Village’s sewage

treatment plant to the Fox River.

Hearing was held in this matter on

October 28, 1976.

No citizens testified at the hearing, and no public

comment

has been received by the Board.

The Grove facility is a small operation consisting of one elec-

troplating plant containing one electroplating line for the processing

of zinc

and

a chromate dip.

The facility employs four people on a

full-time basis plus some part-time work.

During this

8-hour

shift

25-437

---

a

~a

s”aste

effluent containing a

a

~r~c to the public sewer system

of

The Village Manager of Fox

P

of his knowledge Grove Plating

wa~

arqing process

water into

the

Villau

~‘ora

a the Board

~hall address Count II of

th~Co pth a~

£

1

o

(~‘

provides:

or system shall

contain cyanide

/1

~riytime except

as permitted by

Rule

r

L

e n

Complainant~s

Exhibits

4

through

iC

a

c~cy tests

of Grov&s

effluent

including

do.

There was

considerable

testimony

a

~

a ~g the cyanide results,

but

the Board

c~.c

Is.

~curacy of the

results

presenteth

~ t

a

Cr ~e

~as in violation

of Rule 703(a)~

at

a a

t wiF~iullyviolate

Rule

703(a)

but

that

ci

~t

wt

to inform Grove that

it

could

not

dis~

3

f avanile to the Village

sewer~

The

a

~:is.

t goes to mitigation

of the

alleged

~

iaa violated Rule

703(a)

of the

Regu~

r

I~Carplalrt and, therefore,

violated Section

Co r~ I a

1

it

alleges that Grove violated Rule 701(a)

of the Re

at o

~r that Ito discl’arge to the

Village treatment

works cauc ~d t o

~luo

t

thor

tIe treatment works

to violate app1ic~

able effi

~

st~nd~r

uia

2133(f)

sets the effluent standard

for

cyar de

f

r

to

I

t

a treatment plant

at

0~025

mg/la

The

weighre

a

t

~s:l~s

Cf tnenty~five of

the Agency~scyanide

det~rrri:at

c

a

t

a

e~’ lowest and

the

six

highest

resuth

3

~

~ron of the distribution of the

vaIu~

~u

~r

~

at

~d

avera~e~ Using

a discharge

ave

e ci

I

a

a

~

.a

from Grove and a discharge of

350,

0

~

I

y

f

-

in the Fox River

Grove

treatment

plaI

~~ilutes

0~024mg/l

on

wet

days and

0

04

a

a

‘R~2l0).

These

figures

conserva~

tivela

a

a

iti~

discharge is distributed evenly

over

h~

I

ti~

aanitary treatment

plant,

while

in r’~a~

r r~

a

13 thurs per day~

Agency determina~

tioi~ -‘f

~e F a ciiver Grove plant

in Exhibits

39

tnrc

ca

a

t

I

age treatment plant

is indeed in

violaaaor

th

‘0

~yanide~

Grove’s allegation that

tie Ajs. cv ~e

a

S

~

rr

rrtnt plant outhfall

were

not chrono~

logically

e

aec a’

~i

~

~oie xainples taken at

Grove’s

discharge

is

~ro

q

a

703

(b

Rule

3(b

38 contair

quantit~ti’a

and cro~s- a

findc~ to

a

The anal’~

Grove alth ~

thr. Aqercv

~a

charr

e

rors.

Boara

farc~

l~

vio~

ticr

a

ci

lation~

a~

---

3~—

spurious

~ir’ce

Crove~s

discharge

ia

continu

a

uring

the

8~hour

shift

(P

l2~

onsidering

all

the t~tirn

P1

a

ci

Je

Exhibits

pre-~

sented,

i

clucltng the

previously

mentioneci

that thnt Grove is

the

only industrrial concern discharging process water t

the sanitary

treatrre

p

ait

-h~Board finds that Cr ye ha- a alated Rule

701(a)

of the Regi th

no and ttereforc Section 12(a

of tie Act,

as

alleged in Co at

I of the Complaint

Couni- III of the Complaint al age~ti

t Cr

~a is

in violation

of Rule 953(a

of the

Regulations

and 9(1

ah~Act in that

Grove

is operating a pr ~treatment

work~

without

a Icrlrit issued by

the

Agency

Crove

s permit

application

india’s

e’~ a starthup date

of

July

10,

1976 for the

cyanide

destructor s.quJRr~rt (Complainant~s

Exflioit 4~i)

Construction was complete

in ~ re,

1976, and

Grove

has been operating the

equipment

on an exper3

ental basis

up to the

time of the hea~ring

in October,

1976.

At

is. ti e of the

hearing

Grove had no

yet received an Agency operatir

permit.

It

appears

to the Board

hat Grove is in

at

least techni’al violation

of

Rule

953(a) of the Regalations.

Hay rc

und Grove in

violati a

of

‘-ha

e a atons,

the

Board

must consider

-

e imposition of a penalty

~or t ~e

volations.

In

doing so

the Board must

address

the factors cit med

in Section

33(c)

of

tLie

tcl.

There

is

some

evidenae th~

~

River

Grove

treatment

WOL

s suffered

upsets

in its bieaogacia “ys~emsdue

to

Grove

s ~yanade

bearing effluent.

Same of t

i’~

~vidence

is

contained

in an offer of ar of

made

after

the Hearing O~fier rejected the

expert statue of a witness~

The

Board

ii

-oral er the offer

of

proof for whale ar evidentiary weight

it may tav~

The social

and

ecoromic valr’

of the

pollution

source

‘,a

no

n iosue

in this

case

nor was tie

uitaithity of the po11utio~ r

-i

a’

~-othe area in

which

it

is located

It is well established t a

~ro

I rg the

cyanide

in Grove

a effluent is technically pract

b

c~onomically

reasor~b1’~, sper.ially considering that

~‘

~re~dy

installed

a cyanide dastructor,

The Board

finds

thi.

-

a

r

appropriate

in

that it would aid in the enforcement

of the

lat

C

nsidering all

the eviderce rerean,

including the app-r~nlfir~ ial condition

of

Grove and

a

‘

a

c~atefforts to come irto ccmpla’

cc

aith the

Board~s

Regulatiois

~ie Board will assess a

ia e of

a

a

0

cOt

violations

alleged

i

~ourt~zI and II.

The allecrations

ct

thtion of Rules

401(c)

and 468 a

are inapplicable aid ar~i~Y.

iaomissed.

Thth Op4nba constitutes the findings of

f th

and conclusions

of

law of tie Ro’~a3in this

matterS.

25

—

439

---

ORDER

It

is the Order of

the

Pollution Control Board that:

1.

Grove

Plating

Company has violated Rules

701(a)

and

703(a)

of

the

Illinois Pollution

Control Board’s Rules and

Regulations:

Chapter

3,

Water

Pollution and Section 12(a)

of the Environmental Protection Act in that it discharged

cyanide into the public

sewer

system

of

the Village of Fox

River Grove

in excess of the limits set by the Regulations,

which caused the sanitary treatment plant of Fox River Grove

in turn

to discharge cyanide

in excess of limits set by the

Regulations.

2.

Grove Plating Company shall within

35 days of the date

of this Or~erpay

a penalty of $250.00 for the violations

found

in

(1)

above.

Said penalty payment

by certified check

or money order shall be made payable

to the:

State

of

Il:Linois

Fiscal Services Division

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Springfield,

Illinois

62706

3.

Grove Plating Company is found to be in violation of

Rule 953(a)

of the Regulations and 12(b)

of the Environmental

Protection Act

in that it does not poss~essan operating permit

for its pre--treatment works located at ~he Fox River Grove

facility.

4.

Grove Plating shall cease and desist from the violations

found

in

(1)

above.

5.

Grove Plating shall obtain the necessary operating permits

for its cyanide destructor

from the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency within 120 days of the date of this Order.

6.

The Complaint with respect to violation of Rules 401(c)

and 408(a)

is dismissed as inapplicable.

I, Christan L.

Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted on the

/~1..

day of

,

1977 by a vote of____________

Christan

L.. Moff

,

Clerk

Illinois Polluti n Control Board

25

—

440