ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 14,

1976

E:;VIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 76—125

CARGILL,

INC.,

a Delaware Corporation,

Respondent.

Mr.

John

T.

Bernbom, Attorney for Complainant

:‘4r.

Kenneth

J. Gumbiner,

Pedersen

& Houpt, Attorney for

Respondent

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Young)

This matter comes before the Board on a two count Complaint

filed May 4,

1976,

by the Environmental Protection Agency charging

that Cargill,

Inc. has discharged contaminants

to the Fox River

in violation of the effluent standards,

and resulting

in water

pollution in further violation of Section

12(a)

of the Act.

Hearing was held in this matter on July 20,

1976 at which time

the parties announced they were entering into a Settlement Stipu-

lation.

Respondent Cargill owns and operates

a facility that manu-

factures synthetic resins and other products located in Carpenters-

ville, Kane County.

Stormwater

from this facility discharges

into

the Fox River;

it is also apparent that certain process wastewater

collected

in holding tanks was permitted

tc)

enter

this

storm sewer

Ii

r ~

~I I

I

I

~W

-

Agency

reports

indicate

that

Agency

t~

eLd

personnel

I

i

i-st

visited Respondent’s facility on November

26,

1975,

after receiving

reports of a chemical spill to the Fox River near Respondent’s

storm tile discharge outlet.

After an inspection of the surrounding

area, Agency field personnel contacted officials

of Respondent to

inform them of the Agency observations.

The company officials

stated that the contaminants could not have been from the plant

because all process wastes were collected

in underground waste

holding tanks that were periodically emptied and the contents in-

cinerated.

As it developed,

the underground holding tanks used

by Respondent were the same tanks as used by

a prior owner of the

property, and that an overflow provision did exist allowing process

wastes to be discharged into the storm tile.

24

—

47

---

—2—

Agency field personnel returned to the site on Decømber

3,

1975,

after again receiving reports of

a chemical spill

to the

Fox River.

The Agency reports, memoranda and analyses reflecting

the conditions caused by Cargill’s discharge all indicate

a serious

pollution hazard was created on that date

(Attachment

A)

.

Grab

samples indicate that while upstream BOD and SS concentrations were

8 and

33 respectively, samples taken

15

feet downstream of the storm

sewer discharge indicate BOD and SS concentrations of 6000 and 3200

respectively.

The discharge caused the Fox River to become

a beige

brown color, with an oil sheen for 15—20

feet out from the river

banks and for several hundred

feet downstream.

The discharge

carried

a strong solvent type odor.

~n clew of the serious nature

of this chemical spill, Agency personnel began to make routine in-

spections relative to Respondent’s

discharge.

On several other

dates,

the discharge was described as

having

a strong solvent type

odor

and

containing

a

thick

resinous

material.

Obvious

collections

of

the

material

were

noted

in

several

locations

downstream.

In

view of these conditions, Respondent instituted

a program to seal

the overflows and to construct

a

wastewater

treatment facility.

The Settlement Stipulation provides

that: Cargill will install

a wastewater treatment facility costiriq

La excess of $150,000.00

that

will

eliminate

all

existing

vio1at~

ons

of

the Act and regula-

tions.

Cargil

1

also

agrees

to

pay

$2000

.00

to

t:heStat:e

ol

.11

1jno~s

upon

receipt

of

the

Order

of

the

Board

approving

this

Settlement

Stipulation.

On

the

basis

of

the

foregoing

arid

the

Settlement

Stipulation

in this matter,

the

Board

finds that on

December

3,

1975 Respondent

did discharge contaminants

in such

quantities

as to cause water

pollution

in violation of Section l2(aj

the

Act.

The

Board also

finds that Cargill discharged an efflu

containing visible

oil,

floating debris and sludge solids

and

ed

to reduce color, odor

and turbidity of the effluent to below

obvious

levels,

in violation

of Rule 403 and Section 12(a)

of the Act,

The

Board further

finds

that this effluent from Cargill caused the Fox River to contain

unnatural sludge, bottom deposil:s

fio~t nq

debris,

visible

oil

un

Nd

I

II

~I

I

~

I or

I

11(1

1

II

rh

0

i

I y

,

I

V

I

I)

I

I

I

(III

k

II

I

2

U

(a

)

anO

~ect

ion

12 (a)

ol

the Act.

Ilecause

ol

t Iii

di s(~ItIrqe

and the

water

poll

ution

caused

the

Board

~ u r the

r

I inds

tIio L

I roiu

November

26

1975

until

the

filing

of

the

Complaint,

Respondent

failed

to

take

reasonable

measures

to

prevent

the

spillage

of

contaminants

from

causing

water

pollution

in

violation

of

Rule

601(b)

and

Section

12(a)

of

the

Act.

Because

of

a

pleading

deficiency,

the

Board

will

dismiss

the

charges

alleging

violation

of

t:he

effluent stan-

dards,

Rules

404(a) and 408(a).

The Board has held that a

viola-

tion

of

the

five—times

rule

is

a

viola Lion

of

Rule

401 (c)

itself,

rather

than

Rule

404

(and

408)

,

and

since

Rule

401

was

not

mentioned

in

either

the

Complaint

or

Stipulation,

the

charges

will

be

dis-

missed.

EPA v.

County of Lake,

PCB 75-507.

24

—

48

---

—3—

The Board

finds $2,000.00 is sufficient penalty for the yb—

lations

found herein and will assess that amount as the penalty.

Respondent will also be required to

have

its new wastewater treat-

ment facility operational by September

30,

1976.

This Opinion constitutes

the Board’s findings of fact and con-

clusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

1.

Respondent, Cargill,

Inc.,

has

violated Rules 203(a),

403,

and 601(b)

of Chapter

3:

Water Pollution Regulations and

hence Section

12(a)

of the Act and has

ciso

caused water pollu-

tion in violation of Section 12(a)

of the Act.

The Board will

assess a penalty of $2,000.00 for these violations; penalty pay-

ment by certified check or money order payable to the State of

Illinois shall be made within 35 days

of

the date of this Order

to:

Fiscal Services Division, Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency,

2200 Churchill Road, Springfield,

Illinois, 627~6.

2.

Respondent shall continue

to

expeditiously construct the

wastewater treatment facility permitted by Agency permit #l9Th—747.

3.

Respondent shall complete

such

construction and have its

wastewater treatment facility operational by September

30,

1976.

4.

Respondent shall operate

its

wastewater treatment plant

in such manner as

to achieve compliance with the Act and regula-

tions.

5.

That portion of the Complaint

sileqing

violations of Rules

404(a)

and 408(a)

are hereby dismissed

IT

IS SO ORDERED.

I,

Christan L.

Moffett, Clerk of

the

Illinois

Pollution

Con-

trol

Board,

hereby

certify

th

above

Opinion

and

Order

were

adopted

on

the

/4~

day

of

_______________,

1976

by

a

vote

of

_____

Christan

L. Moffe p~/~Clerk

Illinois Poliutioi*’~6ntrolBoard

24

—