ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November
20,
1980
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 77—333
OLIN CORPORATION,
Respondent.
ANN
L. CARR,
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPLAINANT.
RANDALL ROBERTSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by N.E.Werner):
This matter comes before the Board on the December 14,
1977
Complaint brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”)
which alleged that Olin Corporation
(the “Company”)
modified its wastewater treatment facilities by installing
chlorination equipment without first obtaining
a Construction Permit
from the Agency in violation of
Rule
951(a) of Chapter
3:
Water
Pollution Control Regulations and Section 12(b)
of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act
(“Act”).
After numerous discovery
motions were filed,
extensive settlement negotiations ensued, and
a hearing was held on September 12,
1980.
The parties filed a
Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement on September
16,
1980.
The Respondent,
a Virginia corporation licensed to do business
in Illinois,
operates a brass strip and small arms ammunition plant
in East Alton, Madison County,
Illinois which currently employs
about 4,300 workers.
(Stip.
2).
The parties have indicated that
wastewater from the Respondent’s “brass strip,
fabricated products,
metallic and shot shell ammunition and primer explosive processes
and from its potable water treatment plant and steam generating
plant”
is discharged to, and treated at, the Company’s
Zone
6
wastewater treatment facility
(the “facility” or “plant”),
which
in
turn discharges to the East Fork of the Wood River.
(Stip.
2).
At the time that the Respondent modified its plant by installing
chlorination equipment to oxidize a color—causing organic which was
in its effluent, the Company possessed NPDES Permit No.
IL
0000230
which had been issued to the Respondent by the United States
—2—
Environmental Protection Agency
(“USEPA”) on November 10,
1976.
(See:
Exhibit
A;
Stip.
2-3).
The Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency did not begin to issue NPDES Permits until October 24,
1977.
(Stip.
3).
On December 15,
1976,
an Agency inspection revealed that
construction of the chlorination equipment was in progress.
During
that inspection, the Respondent was informed that, under the Agency’s
interpretation of the Board’s regulations, the Company needed a
Construction Permit for the chlorination equipment.
In a letter
dated December 16, 1976,
the Agency formally notified the Company
that it believed a permit was necessary.
(See:
Exhibit B).
On January
3,
1977,
representatives of the Company and the
Agency conducted discussions pertaining to the necessity for a
permit.
The Company’s position was that “it did not need a
Construction Permit for the chlorination equipment because it had
an NPDES Permit issued by the USEPA, which,
pursuant to Section 12(f)
of the Act,
is deemed a permit ‘issued by the Agency’.”
(Stip.
5).
On the other hand,
the Agency’s position was that the Company needed
a permit because it did not fall within the exception in Rule 951(a)
of the Board’s Water Pollution Control Regulations.
The Agency based its position on language found in the Board’s
Opinion of December
5,
1974 in R73—11
& 12 which was issued in
support of the Board’s NPDES Regulations.
This Board Opinion
provided that:
“Rule 951 requires a Construction Permit for all dischargers
including those who have obtained an NPDES Permit from the
U.S.
EPA,
until
such time as the Agency begins to issue
NPDES Permits containing an authorization to construction
(sic) provisions.”
14 PCB 679.
On January
5,
1977, the Company submitted “plans and specifica-
tions for the chlorination equipment”
to the Agency,
“while preserv-
ing its legal position by not also submitting a Permit Application.”
(Stip.
6).
In its letter of February
8,
1977, the Agency notified the
Company that additional information was required to determine
“whether chlorinating the organics in the discharge would result
in
a toxic discharge”
in violation of the Board’s Water Pollution
Control Regulations.
(Stip.
6; Exhibit C).
On November 23,
1977, the Company sent the Complainant a letter
which provided the Agency with additional engineering data and
results of laboratory analysis” in which Olin chlorinated samples
of its effluent to determine the nature of the by-products.”
(Stip.
7;
Exhibit D).
The parties have stipulated that the Company could “present
evidence that those by-products were 1, 2-dichloroethylene,
—3
chloroform,
and 1,
1,
1—trichloroethane in concentrations of less
than
5 ppb,
3.8 ppb, and 10.6 ppb
(all parts per billion),
respectively (Exhibit D)”, while the Agency could “present evidence
that all three of those by-products have been listed as toxic
pollutants pursuant to Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act
(Exhibit E).”
(Stip.
7).
While such chemicals may have toxic effects on fish at higher
concentration levels, the very low concentrations involved here
were apparently harmless and had “no adverse effect on the biological
systems of the water receiving said effluent”.
(Stip.
7).
Thus,
the parties have stipulated that there is no evidence of environ-
mental injury which actually occurred due to the operation of the
chlorination equipment.
(Stip.
7).
Moreover, the Company has indicated that when the Agency filed
its Complaint,
the Company voluntarily shut down its chlorination
equipment, and the equipment “has not been operated since that time”.
(Stip.
3).
The proposed settlement agreement provides that the Company,
while not admitting any violations,
agrees to:
(1) never operate
the chlorination equipment “which has been installed at the Zone
6
Wastewater Treatment Plant and which is the subject of this action
again, without first obtaining an operating permit from the Agency”
and
(2) pay a payment of $750.00 in settlement of this case.
(Stip.
8—9).
In evaluating this enforcement action and proposed settlement,
the Board has taken into consideration all the facts and circum-
stances
in light of the specific criteria delineated in Section 33(c)
of the Act.
The Board finds the stipulated agreement acceptable
under Procedural Rule 331 and Section 33(c) of the Act.
A payment
of $750.00 in settlement of this case is hereby assessed against
the Respondent.
This case
(PCB 77—333)
is hereby dismissed.
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,
the Olin Corporation,
shall comply with
all the terms and conditions of the Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement filed September 16,
1980 which is incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
2.
Within
30 days of the date of this Order,
the Respondent
shall, by certified check or money order payable to the State of
Illinois, pay the payment of $750.00 in settlement of this case
which is to be sent to:
—4—
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois
62706
3.
This
case
(PCB 77—333)
is hereby dismissed.
Dr. Satchell concurs.
I, Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, herpy certify that the above Opinion and Order were adopted
on the ~
day of
/j-,~4._&~
,
1980 by a vote of
_________
Christan L.
Mof
Clerk
Illinois Pollution
ontrol Board
