ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    July 10,
    1980
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 79—251
    SPARTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
    )
    an Illinois Corporation,
    Respondent.
    CHRISTINE
    ZEMAN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF
    OF THE COMPLAINANT.
    VARNUM, RIDDERING, WIERENGO AND CHRISTENSON, ATTORNEYS
    AT LAW
    (MR. JOHN
    W.
    PESTLE,
    OF COUNSEL), APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by N.E.Werner):
    This matter comes before the Board on the November 26,
    1979
    Complaint brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (“Agency”).
    Count
    I of the Complaint alleged that discharges of
    effluents
    from the Respondent’s manufacturing plant
    (the “facility”)
    exceeded the daily average and daily maximum concentration limits
    for suspended solids in its NPDES Permit in violation of Rule 901
    of Chapter
    3:
    Water Pollution Control Regulations
    (“Chapter 3”)
    and Section 12(f)
    of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
    (“Act”).
    Count
    II alleged that discharges of effluent from the
    facility have exceeded the daily maximum concentration limits for
    barium and exceeded five times the numerical
    standard prescribed
    for barium in violation of Rules 401(c), 408(a), and 901 of
    Chapter
    3 and Sections 12(a) and 12(f)
    of the Act.
    Count III
    alleged that, during specified months between November 1977 and
    March
    1979, discharges of effluent from the facility exceeded the
    daily
    maximum
    concentration limits
    for
    lead and exceeded five times
    the numerical standard prescribed for lead in violation of
    Rules 401(c),
    408(a),
    and 901 of Chapter 3 and Sections 12(a)
    and
    12(f)
    of the Act.
    Count IV alleged that the Respondent’s
    discharges exceeded five times the numerical standard prescribed
    for zinc in violation of Rules 401 and 408(a) of Chapter
    3 and
    Section 12(a)
    of the Act.
    A hearing was held on May
    9, 1980.
    The parties filed a Stipulation and Proposal
    for Settlement on
    May 14,
    1980.
    —2—
    The
    Respondent,
    the Sparton Manufacturing Company, operates
    a manufacturing plant located one-fourth mile west of the City of
    Flora in Clay County,
    Illinois which employs about 160 people and
    manufactures automobile horns,
    buzzers, and similar acoustical
    devices for cars.
    (Stip.
    2).
    The Company’s sole business
    is
    supplying automobile horns and acoustical equipment to the automo-
    bile market and principally to Chrysler Corporation.
    (Stip.
    15).
    The Respondent discharges effluent from its facilities to
    Seminary Creek,
    a tributary to the Elm River,
    from a point identi-
    fied as outfall
    serial number 001 pursuant to NPDES Permit
    #IL 0004588,.
    (Stip.
    2).
    On February 16,
    1977, Agency inspectors
    observed that the Respondent’s single cell
    lagoon was almost
    completely full of sludge and the receiving stream contained about
    8 to 10 inches of bottom deposits of whitish-gray sludge.
    (Stip.
    10).
    The Agency recommended that the Respondent upgrade its system,
    dredge the lagoon, and dredge and clean the receiving stream so
    that bottom deposits would not he obvious at the lagoon discharge
    point.
    After twice denying the Company’s permit application pertain-
    ing to the upgrading of its treatment process, on September 23,
    1977,
    the Agency granted the Company a
    2 year permit to construct
    and/or operate water pollution control facilities (including pH
    adjustment equipment, polymer addition facilities,
    and mechanical
    clarification to provide additional treatment of the plating
    waste).
    (Stip.
    10—11).
    However, the Company encountered difficulties in obtaining
    and installing its pollution control equipment resulting from
    problems with suppliers,
    a shipping accident, insurance company
    delays
    in evaluating the extent of damage, the necessity for
    rebuilding the clarifier, and delays in pump delivery.
    (Stip.
    11—12).
    Additionally, difficulties with
    a prior consultant and attempts to
    locate and retain other consulting services led to further problems.
    (Stip.
    14).
    Non—compliance also resulted from minerals
    such as
    barium which were in the well water that the Respondent used for
    process water.
    (Stip.
    6; 15).
    The Company has expended over $45,000.00 to rectify
    the
    situation which has been especially burdensome
    in light of the
    current difficulties that its tie—in with the ailing Chrysler
    Corporation has entailed,
    Chrysler Corporation is currently in
    serious financial trouble and the Federal legislation authorizing a
    Federal
    loan guarantee for Chrysler requires substantial
    credit
    extensions by Chrysler suppliers.
    The extension of credit to
    Chrysler Corporation has had a severe and adverse impact upon small
    automotive suppliers such as Sparton Manufacturing Company.
    In
    fact,
    the entire automotive industry is now experiencing severe
    difficulties.
    In the year ending April, 1980,
    U.
    S. automobile sales
    dropped 27
    and Chrysler sales have dropped more than 47.
    (Stip.
    15).
    —3
    The Agency has received only one complaint from a downstream
    landowner pertaining to pollution in Seminary Creek.
    The complain-
    ing individual,
    Mr. Joseph
    C. Burt,
    is a farmer and long—time
    community resident who owns several acres of property approximately
    three—fourths of a mile from the Sparton Manufacturing Company.
    He has had some problems with livestock getting sick and dying
    although he “still don’t know for sure what’s causing it.”
    (sic)
    (R.
    15;
    R.
    22).
    He had the creek fenced to keep his livestock
    away from
    it.
    (R.
    15).
    Mr. Burt testified that he believed the
    Company was at least partially responsible for his difficulties
    with his livestock.
    (R.
    11—25).
    At the hearing, Mr. Burt stated that he has about $100,000.00
    worth of livestock which he is worried about in case of a storm or
    flood which would wash out his fences.
    (R.
    18).
    On examination
    by the Respondent’s attorney, Mr.
    Burt admitted that he is also
    downstream from the City of Flora’s sewage treatment plant,
    a hog
    farm, and a chemical company which he believes also may have
    adversely affected the water quality.
    (R.
    24—25).
    The proposed settlement agreement provides that the Respondent
    admits the allegations of the Complaint and agrees to:
    (1) cease
    and desist from further violations;
    (2) connect its discharge up
    to the City of Flora’s wastewater collection system and cease
    discharging altogether to Seminary Creek
    (if it can obtain the
    City’s approval);
    (3) construct a new lagoon system and cease
    discharging to,
    and from, its present lagoon
    (if the City and the
    Company cannot reach an agreement pertaining to discharging into
    Flora’s wastewater system);
    (4) promptly apply for,
    and obtain,
    all the requisite permits for modification or construction of
    pollution control equipment and for sludge transport and disposal;
    (5) dredge Seminary Creek around the point of its discharge and
    provide for adequate sludge disposal;
    (6) perform all the necessary
    sampling and analysis of discharges;
    (7)
    file the appropriate
    quarterly compliance reports with the Agency,
    and
    (8) pay a
    stipulated penalty of $3,000.00
    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 Illinois Environmental Protection
    Act.
    The Board finds that
    the Respondent, the Sparton Manufacturing Company, has violated
    Rules 401(c),
    408(a), and
    901 of Chapter
    3:
    Water Pollution
    Control Regulations and Sections 12(a) and 12(f)
    of the Act and
    orders the Respondent to cease and desist from further violations.
    The stipulated penalty of $3,000.00 is hereby assessed against
    the Respondent.
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
    conclusions of law in this matter.
    —4—
    01WER
    It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board that:
    1.
    The Respondent, the Sparton Manufacturing Company, has
    violated Rules 401(c),
    408(a), and 901 of Chapter
    3:
    Water Pollution
    Control Regulations and Sections 12(a) and 12(f) of the Illinois
    Environniental Protection Act.
    2.
    The Respondent shall cease and desist from further
    violations.
    3.
    Within 45 days of the date of this Order, the Respondent
    shall, by certified check or money order payable to the State of
    Illinois, pay the stipulated penalty of $3,000.00 which
    is to be
    sent to:
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    Fiscal Services Division
    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
    May
    14,
    1980, which is incorporated by reference as if fully set
    forth herein.
    I, Christan
    L.
    Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order were adopted
    on the
    Jp~
    day of
    _____________,
    1980 by a vote of
    ~
    Illinois Pollution

    Back to top