ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April

4,

1975

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY,

)

Complainant,

v~

)

PCB 73~4l4

FEDERAL PAPER BOARD COMPANY, INC~

a New York corporation

qualified

to

Respondents

Mr. Frederic J. Entin, attorney

for Complainant~

Mr. Henry F, Field, attorney for Respondents

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Dr~Odell)

On September 28,

1973,. the Illinois Environmental Pro~

tection Agency ..(Agency)

filed a Complaint against the Federal

Paper Board Company

(Federal) with the Illinois Pollution Cox~trol

Board

(Board).

An Amended Complaint was filed on January 29,

1974,

Federal operates a manufacturing facility

(the Morris Mill)

which produces various paper products including paperboard~

Respondent~soperations discharge waste waters to the City of

Morris sewer system and also, in much larger quanties,

to an

unnamed intermittent

streath tributary to the Illinois Rivers

The

facility is located at

600 East North Street, City of Morris,

Grundy County, Illinois~

The Amended Complaint charged that from July 1,

1970,

until

January

29,

1974, Respondent operated its facility causing water

pollution in violation of Sections 12(a)

and. 12(c)

of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Act

(Act), various rules of the Sanitary

Water Board (SWB~8and SWB-l4), and certain rules of the Water

Pollution Regulations

(Chapter Three)

Specifically the Amended

Complaint alleged that Respondent:

1.

From July

1,

1970,

until January 29, 1974,

allowed dis~

charges causing water pollution in an intermittent stream tributary

to

the Illinois River and in the Illinois River

thereinafter both

“the waters”)

in violation of Section 12(a)

of the Act,

2.

From July 1,

1970,

until January 29, 1974, allowed the

discharge

of

inadequately treated industrial wastes containing ex~

cessive amounts of

BOD, suspended solids, and fecal coliform into

the

waters in violation of Section 12(a)

of the Act,

3.

From July

1,

1970,

until April

15, 1971

(sic)

discharged

substances that will settle to form putrescent and otherwise ob~

jectionable sludge

deposits

into the waters in violation of Rule

l~03(a)of SWB~8~

16

-~

281

---

—2—

4.

From July

1,

1970, until April 15,

1972,

caused the

material,

in violation of Rule 1.03(b)

of SWB-8.

5.

From July

1,

1970,

until April

15,

1972, caused the

waters to contain unnatural color,

odor,

of Rule 1.03(c)

of SWB-8.

6.

From July 1,

1970, until April

15,

1972,

failed to

provide facilities for the substantially complete removal of

settleable solids from its industrial wastes

in violation of

Rule 1.08—10(b) (1)

of SWB—8.

7.

From July 1,

1970, until April 15, 1972,

failed to

provide facilities for the removal of all floating debris or

sludge solids from its industrial wastes in violation of Rule

1.08—10(b) (2)

of SWB—8.

8.

From July

1,

1970, until April

15,

1972,

failed to

provide facilities for the removal of color, odor,

to below obvious levels,

in violation of Rule 1.08—10(b) (3)

of

SWB-8.

9.

From April

16,

1972,

until January

29,

1974, caused

the waters to contain unnatural sludge or bottom deposits, floating

debris,

odor,

unnatural color or turbidity in amounts toxic or

harmful to human, animal, plant or aquatic life in violation of

Rules

203(a) and 402 of Chapter Three.

10.

From April

16,

1972,

until January

29,

1974, allowed

the effluent discharge of its industrial wastes to the waters

to

contain settleable solids, floating debris, scum and sludge solids,

color, odor, and turbidity above obvious levels in violation of

Rule 403 of Chapter Three.

11.

From July 1,

1972, until January

29,

1974, allowed

the effluent of its industrial wastes to exceed the BOD standard

of 30 mg/i and the suspended solids standard of

37 mg/i in

violation of Rule 404(a)

of Chapter Three.

12.

From July 31,

1972, until January

29,

1974, allowed

above the standard of 400 per 100 ml in violation of Rule

405 of

Chapter Three.

13.

On December 1,

1971, caused or allowed the construction

or operation of an outlet for its process wastes, which outlet by-

passed

a sanitary sewer and entered a storm sewer discharging to

the Illinois and Michigan Canal

(Canal) without an Agency Operating

Permit in violation of Section 12(c)

of the Act.

14..

From December 1,

1971,

until January

29,

1974,

allowed

through the storm sewer, causing the formation of a mat of

16—282

---

—3—

sludge on the surface of the Canal, thereby causing water

pollution in violation of Section 12(a)

of

the Act.

15.

From July 1,

1970, until April

15,

1972, caused

floating debris and other floating materials from its industrial

waste discharge to be present in the Canal producing color,

odor,

or other conditions in such degree as to create a nuisance in

violation of Rule 1.03(c)

of SWB-l4.

16.

From July

1,

1970,

until April

15,

1972,

failed to

provide facilities

to remove all floating debris,

solids from its industrial wastes in violation of Rule 1.08—10(b)

(2)

of SWB—l4.

17.

From July

1,

1970, until April 15,

1972,

failed to

provide treatment facilities for its industrial wastes

to remove

color,

odor, and turbidity to below obvious levels in violation

of Rule 1.08—10(b) (3)

of SWB—l4.

A hearing was held in Morris,

Illinois, on May

1,

1974.

A Stipulation and Proposal For Settlement

(Stipulation) was en-

tered into evidence which was received by the Board on May 15,

1974.

One expert witness testified for the Respondent; no citi-

zens were present at the hearing.

On October

3,

1974,

the Board

requested the filing of additional information to clarify certain

facts brought out in the Stipulation and hearing.

The Joint

Supplement to Stipulation and Proposal For Settlement

(Joint Supple-

ment)

was received by the Board on November 27,

1974.

On January

9,

1975,

the Board sought additional information about Respondent’s

operations.

The Second Joint Supplement To Stipulation and Pro-

posal For Settlement

(Second Supplement) was received at the Board

offices on February 14,

The Stipulation provided the following information:

“2.

Federal employs approximately 552 persons at the

Morris Mill, which has been in operation since before 1890 and

which Federal acquired in 1956.

The Morris Mill produces normally

between 190 and 220 tons per day of ~!ulti—plycylinder paper—

board, for food and other packaging uses, which is distributed and

sold through Illinois and other Mid-Western states.

“3,

The principal ingredients of this paperboard are re-

cycled waste paper and water, which are mixed together into a fiber

water slurry and fed between felt mats at the “wet end” of the

Morris Mill’s paper—making machine which, through numerous pro-

cesses,

then extracts the water from the stock and produces the

finished paperboard product.

Water extracted from the product

retains certain dissolved and suspended solids,

and is referred

to as white water or process wastewater.

114,

above,

the Morris Mill uses about

River.

16 —283

---

“5.

Before 1970, these process water and cooling water

systems were intermixed.

With the installation of the present

Dorr—Oliver disc saveall in about 1970 at a cost of about $340,000,

Federal embarked upon its effort to totally recycle its own process

waste water and ultimately reach or near

a goal

of

zero process

waste water

effluent

discharge

to

Illjnois waters.

Federal’s con-

cept, now nearing

successful completion,

avoids several major

pitfalls

of

secondary

waste

water

treatment

facilities

(which,

in

a

changing

legal

environment,

may

prove

obsolete

before

completion

and which inevitably discharge some

steady

amounts

of

1~~11~1d~

into

nearby

waters)

By

design,

the

Morris

Mill

should

discharge

no

effluent

into

I:Llinois

waters,

“6.

Federal’s

zero

discharge

system

was

implemented

with

the

knowledge

of

the

Illinois

Sanitary

Water

Board

and

Federal

kept

the

Board

fully

aware

of

its

on-going

efforts

to

work

out

the

problems

which

Federal

has

confronted.

Between

1969

and

1972,

Federal

spent

about

~:956 .065

on

equipment

and

construction

nec-

essary

to

inaugurate

fts

zero

discharge

concept~

Other

than

the

Dorr~-O1iver saveall,

p~n~

f-i~r~’s

went

for

sewer

~gr~g~tthn,

low

pressure drop

cleaners

and

screens,

a

trickling

filter

cleaning

system,

shower

p:Lpino

and

water

reuse

piping

and

for

construction,

including

a building for

the

Dorr~-Oliver,

“7.

The

functfon

and

purpose

of

the

Dorr~-O1iver disc

~a~ieamJ

am

to

~isL~L

~

~

Lsno

1 ezee

r

usritam

Lee

of

used

process

water

resultiny

from

t:se

paoer

rcmnn

f~r~i--iir

I nq

Certain

of

the

fiberous

process

si:ock

is

itseLf

used

to

filter

the

process

waste

wat•er

and

tue

clarified”

water

is

then

recycled

back

into

various

plant

functions

-~

e.

p.

,

as

a

component

of

the

slurry,

to

toe

sach~

riO

~nd

I

t

e~

~

am—ni mt

wamn—u~

ccc

and

L~mar

places

where

fresh

water

was

p:reviously

used.

The

saveali

is

a

very

larpe

machine

whIch

normally

clarifies

about

3000

gallons

~~mr minute~

Since

1970

,

Federal

has

been

faced

with

varyinq

problems,

described,

below,

and.

has

been

continually

seeking

ways

of

cerfect—

in

its

zero

discharqe

concept.

Because

of

the

novelty

of

this

approach

to

water

pollution

abatement

p.roc~ress

has

been

to

some

extent

unpredict.ab

In

am

to

detai

I

and

schedule.

The

first

important

step

was

th~e seqreqatlcn

of

the

process

wastewater

and

the

cooline

3J

P

ro

Pr

lout

ma

c

y,

he

rc~kpam u

P~

Obi

C

15

du~ urlmcir

I

to

tte

ape

and

cOn:aition

of

tue

plant

(built

well

before

the

turn

of

the.

century)

have

caused

occasional

overflows

of

the

process

waste

water

into

the

coolinq

water

system.

The

principal

problem

in

recent

times

has

been

to

track

down

and

close

sporadic

spill

sources

from

the

~‘fresh~

cooling

water

into

the

process

water,

which

sometimes

apparently

cause

the

process

water

balancing

tanks

to

overflow~

“9.

On various

dates

during

1971—1973,

the

EPA

has

observed

Federal’s effluent and

has

caused certain grab samples to be taken.

These

sample

reports demonstrate the variable nature of Federal’s

effluent.

These samples show that Federal’s effluent

on

certain

dates

was

of

such

quality

as

to

cause

in

some

manner

water

pollution

in

violation

of

Section 12(a)

of the Act, but that

as

to specific

parameters,

for

example clarity, biochemical

oxygen demand

(BOD)

16

—

---

—5—

and suspended solids

(SS)

,

sometimes not

“10.

agreement with the City of Morris

(City) which permitted Federal

to discharge certain amounts of process

waste

water

into

the

City~s

sewage system

for treatment at its new sewage treatment plant

then under construction.

On May 20,

1970, Federal and the City of

Morris entered into an agreement which permitted Federal to dis-

charge

up

to 200,000 gallons per day of process waste water

effluent to the City’s treatment facility.

“11.

On November 29, 1971, pursuant to this agreement,

Federal began pumping process waste water into the City’

s

sewer

system.

An undiscovered blockage in the City’s sewer system caused

spills from the City’s sewer system

into

the Illinois and Michigan

Canal which was discovered

on about February 25,

1972.

Federal

immediately

discontinued pumping to

the City’s sewer until the

sewer

was

repaired

on March 16,

1972.

As

a result of this

spi:Ll,

3908

fish, valued at 0773,60 were killed

in

the Illinois

and

Michigan Canal.

sr17

Further unforeseen problems experienced by the City in

creating the Morrcs Moli effluent at

lime Caty’

S

new treatment

Than

it~

nu~eo

sic

cans

to

re

m~e

anrLhcr

treatment

antI

technical problems at the new :Eacility were worked out.

Federal

ceased pumoing into the

City’

s sewer for 66 days between i~ay20,

tO7s ant duly

2u,

LY

12,,

when tue

City

once

again

accepted

the

Morris Mill effluent for treatment.

13.

Between July 25, 1972 and October

1,

197:3, Federal

d.ischarged varying

a’mount.s of

proc::ess wastewater

into, the City

sewer but at vastly reduced levels than permitted

Ihy the contract

because of the t.echnical problems

‘the City was experiencing with

uam

Lrsatme

~i

~

cl

ccm

In

0

am

i

11

Ci

i

~0J~e~I

me

Ci

in

s

reduced capanilfly .limited Federal

s planning and. develop—

:ment efforts wIth reciard

to solving the remainirie problems in

attaining the zero di scharge goal..

On October

1

1973,

al :L

rocess

r

Lu

(

a

)

o—

n~r

~J

i

I0J~

a

em:fob of thuen months

1.0

al.

lox

the.

Ci-i:y p1ant. to

:.orepara

its solids

harmdlinc: samem

Ior the win.cer.

Shortly after year—end,

—

~0_~

L

~

Lii

I

m

r

JL~

00

1

rams

~

C

0

i~

tinues today without difficulty at the City plant.

This

agreed

/

c

I

O~

it~

0

Ii

00

jc

~

_C1

ri

(

I

II

aneril

5~ I

~fl0CO~

‘it

fly

both

parties

Federal. now approaches

:Ltstask

of

final

pclLuiaon

ahat.ement. with lbis arrangement as background

..

Since

.1969

Federai has been successful

in reduc :Lnq

its discharge to

‘the Illinois

River by over 97

0:. in

respect

to

the remainder, Federal

armd EPA

subi an,

ror

tam

aspan

one

Ilanrcjs

icLintioo Contr

i

Bcard

the Settlement Proposal

‘..o.em discussed helomm”

16

—

285

---

—6—

The Joint Supplement and the Second Supplement provided

the following information:

1.

At present, sampling of BOD and suspended solids is

done on an irregular, grab sample basis.

The samples show that

the daily total discharge process waste water

is 62,500 gallons

with concentrations of

2,400 ppm for BOD and 1,775 ppm for sus-

pended solids.

The table below shows the past, present, and ex-

pected final levels of discharges for BOD and suspended solids:

BOD and TSS Discharge Levels to the Illinois River

Standards Under

Rule

Late

Compliance Plan Levels After

404(a)

404(b)

1960’s

Present

6 mos.

15—18 mos.

mg/i

mg/i

lbs/day

mg/l

ñtg/1

lbs/day mg/i lbs/day

BOD

30

20

2,400

50

20

6,000

1,250

500

TSS

37

25

1,775

37

25

7,500

925

625

2,

The City is not capable of taking additional amounts

of process waste water from the facility now or in the near

future.

3.

Zero discharge of effluent is not unreasonable at the

facility, but the experimental nature of the process makes it un-

certain when this goal can be achieved.

4.

During the late 1960’s,

the level of discharge of

total process waste water mixture

(including cooling water) was

3 million gallons per day.

After the compliance program is com-

pleted,

62,500 gallons per day of total process waste water will

be discharged at concentration levels indicated in the table above.

At the hearing, Federal indicated that

it wants to achieve

zero discharge of waste waters at the plant, because federal re-

gulations refer

to zero discharge as a goal

(R.lO).

Secondary

treatment methods have been rejected in favor of the use of a

Dorr-Oliver Saveall unit which

filters and recycles process waste

water before final discharge

(R.12).

The high effluent concen-

trations in the past and at present result from leaks and spills

from the two different inplant water systems, i.e.,

the cooling

water system and the waste water system.

Once the Water Systems

Building is finished pursuant to the compliance plan,

the cooling

water should be satisfactorily isolated from the waste water so

that high effluent concentrations are eliminated

(R.13,

18).

The Settlement Proposal in the Stipulation required Federal

to construct

a new Water

Systems Building within fifteen months

with an additional three months added to the schedule if winter

weather impedes construction.

Federal agreed to maintain a 30—

day average of

50 mg/l of BOD and 37 mg/i suspended solids within

six months after initiation

of the compliance plan.

The standards

of Rule 404(b) would be met one year later.

It was estimated that

16 —286

---

compliance would cost an additional $250,000.

Federal agreed

to investigate other methods of compliance, execute a per-

formance bond in the amount of $50,000, report to the Agency,

and pay a penalty of $12,000 plus $773.60 for the fish kill.

The Settlement Proposal was expressly conditional on acceptance

in all respects by the Board.

From the Stipulation and attached exhibits, we find that

Respondent violated on November 18,

1971,

Rules 1.03(a), 1.03(b),

1.03(c),

1.08—10(b) (1),

1.08—10(b) (2), and 1.08—10(b) (3)

of SWB—8.

Respondent violated Rules

203(a) and 403 of Chapter Three on

November 30, 1972, January

29,

1973,

and August 28, 1973.

Rules

1.03(a),

1.08—10(b) (2), and 1.08—10(b) (3)

of SWB—14 were violated

on November 18,

1971.

All of these violations contravene Section

12(a)

of the Act.

Respondent violated Section 12(c)

of the Act

on and after December 1,

1971,

as alleged in

the Complaint.

We accept the Stipulation and Proposal For Settlement

entered into between the parties.

The compliance program will

result in the abatement of the pollution problem.

The penalty is

sufficient to satisfy the deterrence function under the Act; the

sums for the fish kill are reasonable.

This Opinion constitutes the finding of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:

1.

Respondent violated Sections 12(a)

and 12(c)

of the

Act, certain rules of SWB—8

and SWB-l4,

Chapter Three as set out in greater detail in our Opinion.

2.

Respondent

shall pay a penalty of $12,000 for its

violations

of the Act and regulations established in this Opinion

plus

$773.60 to the Game and Fish Fund of the State Treasury for

the reasonable value of the fish killed as agreed to in the Settle-

ment Proposal, and as provided in Section

42 of the Environmental

Protection Act.

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.

Respondent shall carry out all the terms

(A through

J)

of the Settlement Proposal as contained on pages

9 through 15 of

the Stipulation and Proposal For Settlement submitted to the

Board on May 15,

1974.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, he~nebycertif

th~.t‘the above Opinion and Order was adopted

on the

4.i”~

day of

_____________,

1975,

by a vote of

~,3

Christan L. M~4 tt