ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April 29, 1982
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
)
AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
)
)
v.
)
PCB 78—226
)
MODERN PLATING CORPORATION,
)
Respondent.
JOSEPH
A.
DRAZEX,
ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
THE
COMPLAINANT.
THOMAS
W.
WEAVER,
SIDLEY
&
AUSTIN,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
THE
RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND
ORDER
OF THE BOARD
(by I. Goodman):
This matter comes before the Board on the August 21,
1978
Complaint brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency).
On December 13,
1979, the Agency filed an Amended
Complaint which alleged that the Respondent discharged effluents
from its wastewater treatment plant into the Pecatonica River
which contained excessive levels of cadmium, chromium (hexavalent),
copper, cyanide,
iron,
zinc, mercury, and nickel.
This Amended
Complaint also alleged that the Modern Plating Corporation (MPC)
failed to:
(1) provide the best degree of wastewater treatment;
(2) take all reasonable measures to prevent spillage of contami-
nants from
causing water pollution;
(3) properly maintain and
operate its wastewater treatment equipment;
(4) comply with the
water sampling and record keeping requirements of its NPDES
Permit;
(5) promptly notify the Agency about its noncompliance
with daily
maximum
effluent limitations; and
(6) file adequate
discharge monitoring reports in violation of the terms and con—
ditions of its NPDES Permit, Rules 401(a), 401(c), 408(a), 601(b),
and 901 of Chapter 3:
Water Pollution Regulations (Chapter 3)
and Sections 12(a),
12(b), and 12(f) of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act (Act).
On June 18,
1981, a hearing was held in which the proposed
First Stipulation was the only substantive matter introduced into
the record.
The parties filed this First Stipulation, which did
not contain a compliance program, on June 25,
1981.
Subsequently,
a hearing was held on March 5,
1982 and the parties filed a Stip-
ulation and Proposal for Settlement
(2nd Stip.) on March 8,
1982.
46—177
—2—
The Modern Plating Corporation,
which is engaged
in
zinc,
cadmium, nickel, chromium,
and copper electroplating and rust—
proofing operations,
owns and operates a wastewater treatment
plant (facility)
located at 701—751
S.
Hancock Avenue in the
City of Freeport, Stephenson County,
Illinois.
(1st
Sti.p.
3),
The Respondent’s facility, which discharges between 300,000 to
400,000 gallons of wastewater per day into the Pecatonica River,
pursuant to NPDES Permit No.
1L003298,
is designed to
treat
cyanide—bearing, chromium—bearing and acid alkali streams of
wastewater in batch treatment tanks and neutralization basins.
(1st Stip.
3),
The parties have stipulated that;
(1) on August
9,
1979,
the Respondent’s former facility operator disclosed to MPC that
he had falsified discharge monitoring reports submitted to the
Agency;
(2) the Attorney General was promptly advised in person
of this situation;
and
(3)
the employee was immediately relieved
of all environmental duties and soon after fired by MPC.
(1st
stip.
5),
On May 5,
1980,
the Illinois Attorney General filed
a criminal complaint against the Respondent and some of its of-
ficers
in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit,
Stephenson County,
Illinois which was concluded pursuant to
a
Court Order and Plea Agreement on November
6,
1980.
(See;
The
~p)~e
of the State of Illinois
v. Modern Plating Corporation,
paul
Massion,
Morris
McCa~y_~d
Lucille
Miller,
80 CM 319;
Ex.
A and B of Complainant’s Motion to Withdraw Certain Portions
of the ~mended Complaint;
Ex.
H to K of 1st Stip.).
In the
criminal court action,
the Respondent “entered into a voluntary
plea of guilty to a total of
12 counts alleged in the Criminal
Complaint and paid a fine of $125,000 into the Circuit Court of
Stephenson County.”
(1st Stip.
8).
As part of the Plea Agree-
ment, the Agency and the Attorney General agreed to credit any
fine imposed by the Board against the $125,000 fine imposed on
MPC by the
Circuit
Court.
(Plea Agreement,
p.
13).
Since September of
1979,
the Respondent has increased its
environmental staff,
employed a competent new plant operator,
instituted efficient quality control programs, and purchased
some new equipment.
(1st Stip.
10—13).
Concurrently, the
quality of MPC’s effluent “has continued to improve to levels
of, or approaching, compliance.”
(2nd Stip.
4-5).
Although
periodic noncompliance has occurred on various occasions,
discharge monitoring reports and lab tests indicate a signif-
icant improvement in the Respondent’s effluent discharges.
(2nd Stip.,
Ex.
H),
On September 21,
1981,
the City of Freeport’s Water and
Sewer Commission gave final approval
to MPC’s request for per~
mission to tie—in its pretreated wastewater to the City’s pub-
licly-owned treatment works.
(2nd Stip.,
Ex.
D).
Construction
of the tie-in began on February
8,
1982 pursuant to Agency Water
Pollution Control Permit No. l982—EE—0006.
(2nd Stip.
3—4).
46—178
—3—
The proposed sewer connection will be accomplished by utilizing
“906 linear feet of
10
inch diameter vitrified clay pipe,
designed to transport treated industrial wastewater
(300,000 gpd,
3000 P.E.)
to an existing 24 inch diameter sanitary sewer located
on Hancock Avenue and tributary to the Freeport Sewage Treatment
Plant.”
(2nd Stip.,
Ex.
G).
On May
7,
1981, the Agency filed a Motion to Withdraw with
Prejudice all requests for monetary penalties.
This motion was
granted by the Hearing Officer on June
8,
1981.
On June
16,
1981,
the Agency filed
a Motion to Withdraw with Prejudice all allega-
tions of past violations other than those that had been expressly
admitted to by the Respondent in the proposed Stipulation of Facts
(First Stipulation or 1st Stip.).
On ~June17,
1981, this motion
was granted by the Hearing Officer.
Although the
legality of
these Hearin~Officer orders is questionable, the problem
is
cured hy their incorporation into
the
proposed Stipulation.
The
proposed settlement agreement imposes no monetary penalty
against the Respondent and Provides that MPC agrees to:
(1) promptly complete its construction of the sewer connection
and tie-in its effluent to the City of Freeport’s sanitary sewer
system by May 31,
1982;
(2) adhere to a specified sludge manage-
ment program;
(3)
follow all special conditions in its Water
Pollution Control Permit No. 1982—EE—0006; and
(4) perform the
requisite chemical analyses of water samples drawn from four
groundwater monitoring wells,
(2nd Stip.
5-12).
The negotiations conducted by the parties herein with respect
to the criminal case in the Circuit Court,
a variance petition,
and this enforcement
case are not only inappropriate hut resulted
in
a messy,
if not illegal, resolution of the problem.
Neverthe-
less,
the Board will accept the Stipulation in order to facilitate
the
abatement of the pollution in as rapid
a manner as possible.
The Board finds the settlement agreement acceptable under
Procedural Rule 331 and Section 33(c)
of the Act and finds that
the Respondent has violated the terms and conditions
of its NPDES
Permit,
Rules 401(a) and 901 of Chapter
3, and Sections
12(a) and
12(f)
of the Act.
The Respondent will be ordered to follow the
compliance program as delineated in the Stipulation and no
monetary penalty will be assessed against MPC.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of
fact and
conclusions
of law in this matter.
ORDER
1.
The Respondent,
Modern Plating Corporation, has violated
the terms and conditions of its NPDES Permit,
Rules
401(a)
and 901
of Chapter 3:
Water Pollution Regulations, and
Sections
12(a)
and 12(f)
of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act.
46—179
—4—
2.
The Respondent shall comply with all the terms and con-
ditions of the Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement
filed on March
8,
1982,
which
is incorporated by reference
as if fully set forth herein.
Board Member J.
Anderson dissented.
I,
Christan L.
Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Contr’l
Board,
hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order were adopt~
on the
~±‘
day of
____
,
1982 by a vote of
—
Christari L. Mof e~, Clerk
Illinois Pollution
control Board
46—180