ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February 14, 1975

CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT,

v.

)

PCB 74—201

STEPAN CHEMICAL, Respondent;

STEPAN CHEMICAL, Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 74—270

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent;

STEPAN CHEMICAL, Petitioner,

V.

)

PCB 74—317

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

DISSENTING OPINION

(by Dr.

Odeli)

My dissent in this consolidated proceeding is from the

Order which the Pollution Control Board

(Board)

passed on

February 14,

1975.

My dissent

is based primarily on the low

penalty that was established •by our February 14, 1975,

Order

even though Stepan showed distinctly less than good faith

efforts to control water pollution in accordance with previous

agreements approved by the Board.

This consolidated proceeding involves

an enforcement

case

(PCB 74-201)

,

an appeal from permit denial

(PCB 74—270),

and a Petition for Variance

(PCB 74—317).

Stepan owns and

operates a chemical manufacturing facility, known as the Mills—

dale Plant, which

is located in Will County near the Des Plaines

River.

Effluent from the Millsdale Plant

is discharged to

Cedar Creek a short distance before it flows into the Des Plaines

River.

On January 24, 1974,

the Board issued its O~inionand

Order in two prior consolidated cases involving Stepan, PCB 72-489

and PCB 73-184,

in which Stepan was to achieve compliance with

applicable Water Pollution Regulations.

The following quotations from the February 15,

1975,

majority Board Opinion in the current consolidated cases

(PCB

74—201,

—270,

and —317)

indicate less

than good

faith

efforts by

Stepan to control water pollution from

its

Millsdale Plant:

15—469

---

—2—

Page

9

-

“In the prior consolidated cases

(PCB 72-489 and

PCB 73-184)

Stepan told the Board that it planned to

install

a pipeline from the waste treatment plant to

the Des Plaines River by July 15,

1974.

The Board

approved of this project because the Des Plaines has

a greater assimilative capacity and the plan would

provide relief for Cedar Creek.

However, when Stepan

told the Agency on January

16,

1974

(Stepan Exhibit

#7)

that its construction permit application was being

prepared,

it was revealed for the first time that

Stepan did not intend to install pipeline continuously

from the plant to the Des Plaines River.”

Page 10

-

“Andrae~stestimony on this point

(contact with

adjacent railroads)

raised some doubt about Stepan~s

good faith throughout its dealings with the Board and

the Agency.”

Page 15

-

“It appears to us that Stepan, at the time it agreed

to divert its effluent to the Des Plaines River, knew

full well that it could not meet its agreed deadline.

Therefore, we are reluctant to praise Stepan for dili-

gence and good faith.”

The record clearly shows that Stepan has not shown good

faith in dealing with its water pollution problems,

even though

the Board and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Ageney’~

have consistently cooperated with Stepan in efforts to resolve its

problems.

In view of these circumstances,

I believe that the

penalty for the continuing violations

in this consolidated pro-

ceeding should have been $25,000, and certainly not less than the

$20,000 which was suggested by the Complainant, Citizens For A

Better Environment.

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

Board, do hereby certify that the above Dissenting Opinion was

filed this ,?/~“~dayof

~

1975.

15

—

470