ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October 17, 1974
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
v
)
PCB 73-50
CARUS CORPORATION,
a Delaware
corporation,
Respondent.
Mr. Fredric J. Entin, attorney for Complainant.
Mr. Eugene W. Beeler, Jr., attorney for Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr.
Odell)
The Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
filed a
Complaint against the Carus Corporation
(Carus)
on February
2,
1973.
An Amended Complaint was filed March
9,
1973, and a
Second Amended Complaint was filed August 17, 1973.
The Third
Amended Complaint was filed September 14, 1973.
In this Complaint,
the Agency alleged that:
1.
Respondent, from August 31,~l970,to September 14,
1973,
discharged effluent into the Little Vermillion River from the
South Lagoon of its facility in violation of Section 12(a)
of the
Environmental Protection Act
(Act).
2.
Respondent, from August 31,
1970,
to March 7,
1972,
operated its wastewater facilities
in such
a manner as not to
remove color to below obvious levels from the effluent which dis-
charged into the Little Vermillion Creek in contravention of Rule
1.08(10) (b) (3)
of the Illinois Sanitary Water Board Rules and
Regulations
(SWB—14).
3.
Respondent, from August 31,
1970,
to March
7, l~72,
operated its wastewater facilities
in a manner producing odor in
disregard of Rule 1.03(c)
of SWB-l4.
4.
Respondent, from March 7,
1972,
to September 14, 1973,
operated its wastewater facilities in a manner allowing effluent
from the South Lagoon to contain visible oil and failed to provide
for removal of color and turbidity to below obvious levels contrary
to Rule 403 of Chapter
3: Water Pollution Regulations of Illinois
(Chapter 3).
On March
28,
1974,
a hearing took place in Ottawa,
Illinois.
A Stipulation and Proposal For Settlement (Stipulation) was made
part of the hearing record.
On May 29, 1974, the Pollution Control
Board
(Board)
ruled that the Stipulation was unacceptable.
First,
14
—
163
—2—
no violations were admitted, and the evidence was insufficient to
determine whether any offenses had occurred.
Second,. the
Stipulation did not make clear whether the program of compliance
would achieve conformance with all applicable regulations.
Third,
the inconsistent legal remedies
of a penalty and dismissal were
both sought in the Stipulation.
We stated that we could not
implement both remedies because “payment of
a $900.00 penalty is
predicated on violation of the Act or regulations;
dismissal
implies that no violation has occurred.”
On September 18,
11974,
the parties submitted to the
Board an Amended Stipulation and Proposal For Settlement
(Amended
Stipulation).
The parties stipulated that color violations under
Rule 1.08 (10) (b) (3) occurred on June 9 and September 14,
1971;
Respondent also admitted violating the color and oil standards of
Rule 403 of Chapter Three on March
7 and December 19,
1972.
We
hold that violations
of Rule 1.08 (10) (b) (3)
and Rule 403 took
place
as admitted.
In pertinent part,
the Amended Stipulation stated:
1.
Carus
“is presently engaged in the manufacture of
industrial use chemicals, including CAIROX potassium permanganate,
hydroquinone, and Mn28 manganese sulfate.
Carus also produces,
on
a much smaller scale, several dry—mix chemicals of
a proprietary
nature.
It employs 169 persons.
.
2.
“All water from the barometric condensors,
equipment
cooling water, drinking fountain water, and water from the boiler
feed water station
is discharged directly to the South Lagoon
which,
in turn,
is designed to prevent the discharge of insoluble
manganese and suspended solids into the Little Vermillion River.
The South Lagoon is approximately 650
feet by
300 feet,
has a
design capacity of 1,500 gallons per minute,
and discharges
at
the rate of approximately 670 gallons per minute.
The South
Lagoon and its effluent are the subject of this Enforcement
Action.
.
3.
“Carus has undertaken various process and maintenance
control improvements which were also expected to enhance the
quality of the South Lagoon effluent, some of which were internally
approved and begun prior to filing of this Enforcement Action by
the Agency.”
The total cost of such improvements was in excess of
$80,000.
4.
“The parties hereby stipulate and agree to the follow-
ing special conditions which shall modify this proposal notwith-
standing any of the above terms and conditions:
(a)
The process and maintenance control improvement
projects, having been completed,
the parties hereby
stipulate that the South Lagoon effluent is in com-
pliance with those regulations for which violations
were charged by the Agency in its Third Amended Com-
plaint.
14
—
164
—3—
(b)
The parties are submitting this amended proposal
for settlements which,
in conjunction with the record
of the hearing previously held on March
28,
1974, in
Ottawa,
Illinois, should provide sufficient basis
for
the Board to enter a final order incorporating the
terms and provisions provided herein.
(c)
Carus agrees to remit $900.00 to the State of
Illinois
as a civil penalty for those violations
admitted above.
Said penalty will be paid within
35 days following the entry of the Order of the
Board in this case.
(d)
In the event that the Agency determines
to take
samples
that in any way relate to any Carus effluent,
Carus shall be provided an opportunity to have its
representative accompany any Agency personnel during
such sampling for the purpose of observing Agency
sampling techniques and of obtaining split samples.
Accordingly, before undertaking any ~such sampling,
the Agency shall
(i)
give notice thereof to Carus,
and
(ii)
provide Carus a reasonable opportunity for
obtaining
a representative to accompany Agency
sampling personnel.
(e)
Approval by the Board of this proposal shall
constitute dismissal with prejudice of the Enforce-
ment Action herein with regard to the South Lagoon.
(f)
Should the Board fail to approve all of the terms
of this proposal,
said proposal shal’, at the election
of either party, be held for naught and no admissions
or allegations contained herein shall serve to pre-
judice any party in any subsequent hearing and decision
of this case.
We accept the Stipulation and Proposal For Settlement
entered into between the parties.
Although the penalty is only
$900.00, large sums have been spent to bring about compliance
with the Act and regulations.
Also, where parties have come to
an agreement to bring about the cessation of
a pollution problem,
we hesitate to disturb the settlement in the absence of citizen
opposition to
it.
Although the Amended Stipulation has satisfactorily
answered the questions posed in our May 29 Order,
the parties
have still failed to resolve the problem of inconsistent remedies.
Paragraph 4(c)
calls for a penalty payment while paragraph
4(e)
as quoted above prescribes dismissal.
Since the Amended Stipulation
should be read as a whole, we construe the “dismissal”
in
4(e)
to
merely bar the Complainant from bringing another enforcement action
against the Respondent for the time period and relating to the
regulations set out in the Third Amended Complaint.
14—
165
—4—
This constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of
law of the Board.
ORDER
IT
IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Respondent cease and ~esist from violating the Act
and regulations.
2.
Respondent pay a penalty of $900.00
for its violations
of the Act and regulations established in this Opinion.
Payment
shall be by certified check or money order payable to the State
of Illinois, Fiscal Services Division, Environmental Protection
Agency,
2200 Churchill
Road, Springfield,
Illinois 62706.
Payment
shall be made within
35 days of the adoption of this Order.
3.
The parties carry out Special Condition
4(d)
of
the
Amended Stipulation as set out above.
Mr. Marder abstained.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, he~ebycertify
hat the above Opinion and Order was adopted
on the
17
“~dayof
_____________,
1974,
by a vote of
.3
to
C ristan
L. M~,y’ett
—
14
—
166