ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 14,1974
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
PCB 73—344
THE HOWELL COMPANY, a division of
Interlake, Inc., a Delaware corporation)
qualified to do business in Illinois,
Respondent.
John Slattery, attorney
for
Environmental Protection Agency.
W. Thursby, attorney for Respondents.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Dr. Odell)
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) filed a
Complaint against Respondent Howell on August 16, 1973.
Respondent owns and operates a furniture manufacturing plant
at 410 South First Street, Saint Charles, Illinois. The
furniture constructed by Howell contains metal parts which
must be either painted or chrome plated. Pieces to be painted
are first cleaned at a phosphatizing cleaning line. The chrome
plated parts require cleaning; coating, and rinsing at a nickel
plating line and a chrome plating line. Rinse water from the
phosphatizing, nickel, and chrome lines is discharged into the
Fox River.
The
Complaint alleged that Howell discharged effluent into
the Fox River from its manufacturing plant in violation of
Section 12 (a) of the Environmental Protection Act (Act), the
Rules and Regulations of bhe Illinois Sanitary Water Board (SWB-ll)
and the provisions of Chapter Three: Water Pbllution Regulations
of I1linoi~
(Chapter Three), Specifically the Complaint charged
that:
1.
From April 15, 1971. until March 7, 1972, Respondent
failed
to provide for substantially complete removal of settle—
able $olids in violation of
Rule 1.08 (10) (b) (1) and 1.03(a) of
SWB-ll. Rule 403 of Chapter Three was violated in this manner
from March
7,
1972, until august 16, 1973.
2. From April 15, 1971, until Mar~h7, 1972, Respondent
~ai1ed to provide for removal of color, odor, and turbidity to
below obvious levels in violation
of Rule 1.08
(10) (b) (3) and
L03(c) of SWB-11. Rule 403 of Chapter Three was violated in
the
same way from March 7, 1972, until
August 16~ 1973.
3. From April 15, 1971, until August
16~ 1973, Respondent
.od
to
construct
additional or improved treatment works for
—2—
removal of m~talsas required by Rule 1.08(15) of SWB-ll,
continued effective by Section 49(c) of the Act.
4. From April 15, 1971, until April 16, 1972, Respondent
failed to remove discharging substances toxic or harmful to
aquatic life in violation of Rule 1.03(d) of SWB-ll. Rule 203(a)
of Chapter Three was violated in identical fashion from April 16,
1972, until August 16, 1973.
5. From December 31, 1972, until August 16, 1973,
Respondent operated its furniture manufacturing plant, a waste—
water source, without an Operating Permit in violation of Rule
903 of Chapter Three.
Respondent’s answer to the Complaint was filed on October
17, 1973. Respondent denied all violations of the Act, SWB-ll,
and Chapter Three. Howell further moved that the action be
dismissed and counterclaimed, seeking to have the EPA issue
construction and operating permits. EPA filed a reply on
October 22 and realleged the violations set out in its original
Complaint and moved to strike Respondent’s counterclaim in that
there is neither a provision in the Board’s Procedural Rules
for filing a counterclaim nor had Respondent exhausted its
administrative remedies in appealing from a permit denial.
Howell’s reply to the Complainant’s motion was filed on October
30, 1973, and stated that Rule 309 of the Procedural Rules must
be read to presume the right to counterclaim.
A December 6, 1973, hearing took place in Saint Charles,
Illinois, and a Stipulation and Proposal For Settlement was
made part of the record. Paragraph 4 of the Stipulation indicated
that on November 1, 1973, Howell received from EPA a permit to
construct, own and operate a water pollution control facility to
provide treatment for process water to the Fox River. “It is
expected that said facilities shall be constructed and operational
by December 31, 1973, and that discharges from said facility and
the plant will be in compliance with the Board’s Water Pollution
Regulations, including those provisions which become applicable
January 1, 1974.” Paragraph 5 reviewed the nature of the alleged
violations and the answers and motions filed by the parties.
Paragraph 6 stated in part:
“6. In the course of the discussions between EPA and
Howell since the commencement of this proceeding, Howell has
determined that EPA can establish a prima facia (sic) case of
the alleged violation set forth in paragraph 5” of the Stipulation~
“Howell has now obtained a construction and operating permit for
additional control facilities as set forth in paragraph 4” of the
Stipulation.
. .
“Accordingly, the parties propose the settle
ment set forth in the following paragraph, said proposed sett1oo~ct
having been agreed by EPA and Howell to be conditioned upon ccli
effective only on the entry of an Order approving this Stipu~at~
and Proposal for Settlement as well as the proposed settlement
all respects by the Pollution Control Board. EPA and Howe1~ hate
further agreed that if such an Order is not entered,
this document
i1•~
570
—3—
shall be inoperative in all respects and any and all statements
of any party or person contained herein shall be null and void,
of no effect and shall not be used or offered in evidence in
this or any other action or proceeding.”
The Board filed an interim order for additional information
on January 17, 1974. We requested more information in that order,
because Respondent neither admitted for the purpose of Settlement
any violation nor were sufficient facts made available to enable
the Board to make a determination and decide whether the imposition
of a $10,000 penalty was reasonable. The parties filed a Motion
For Reconsideration on January 31, 1974, but orally agreed during
the February 7 Board meeting to supply additional data. Supple-
mentary information
--
totaling approximately 150 pages of pictures,
charts, and data sheets
——
was submitted to the Board on February
11, 1974, by EPA “with the consent and approval of the Respondent.”
The information indicates that the violations have been both
numerous and long-standing. The following sampling of data
establishes the violations set out in the Complaint:
1. Background Information. The information submitted on
February 11, 1974, contained the following description of the
Howell Company:
“The Howell Company, a division of Interlake Steel
Corporation, is located on the west bank of the Fox River in
Saint Charles, Illinois, a city with a population of 12,928.
The company manufactures a well known line of kitchen chairs,
tables, etc.
The company has a history of unsatisfactory effluent dis-
charges to the Fox River since 1956. Chrome and nickel wastes
from two separate plating lines are discharged to a large manhole
via two separate lines. The manhole is located in the driveway
behind the plant. The combined flows from these two lines is sub-
srquently discharged to the Fox River. The actual point of dis-
charge to the river is enclosed by a structure that was previously
used for a water intake years ago. Since the effluent is enclosed,
it is not possible to observe the actual point where the waste
water enters the river. Extremely high nickel concentrations have
been detected entering the manhole behind the plant.
Chrome and nickel recovery facilities were installed in 1967.
A permit to install and operate these facilities was not required
by the Sanitary Water Board at that time. These units failed to
lower the heavy metals concentration in the effluent below the
standards. It is apparent that the recovery facilities are not
capable of producing a satisfactory effluent on a continuous basis.
Samples collected from the plant effluent manhole show a highly
variable concentration of heavy metals from day to day. The
discharge of plating wastes to the Fox River continues to the date
of this referral. Total suspended solids in excess of 15 mg/I are
also discharged to the stream.
Environmental Protection Agency Biologist William Tucker
surveyed the river on July 16, 1971. His report classifies the
aquatic environment upstream from the Howell Company effluent as
ii —571
—4—
being balanced. The downstream environment was found to be
polluted. No aquatic organisms were observed.
Stephen E. Baldwin
Sanitary Inspector
There is much evidence in the information submitted on
February Il, 1974, of violations of the nickel and chromium
(hexavalent) standards as found in TR 20-22, incorporated in
SWB-ll Rule l.08(lO)(b)(4). The Complaint did not allege any
violations of Rule l.08(l0)(b)(4). In deciding upon the reason-
ableness of the penalty, the Board has excluded consideration of
the nickel and chromium data,, Respondent stated in paragraph 6
of its Stipulation and Proposal For Settlement (already set
out
above) that Complainant can establis~ia prima fade
case of
violations of SWB—ll, We interDrct that statement to apply
only
to allegations made in the Complaint.
In paragraph 7 of the Settlement Proposal the parties
state:
Said Order shall also provide that this
proceeding shall
stand
dismissed with prejudice
.
to any and
all actual or
alleged violations
.
We enderstand the parties to mean all
allegations actually
proven Puss tc e sickel and
chromium
(hexavalent) violations
not
containee in the
Complaint are not
considered,
Our final
order only covers those
allegations con-
tained
in the
Complaint. In,
entorcement action
alleging violations
of
Rule 1.08(10) (b) (4) of SWB—Li ccc precluded
by this cause.
2. File Resume. The data iheltted February 11, 1974,
contained a file resume of correspondence between the state
agency and Howell from 1956 to 1971 The following 1965
to 1968
information was excerpted from that tbcument;
December 16, 1965 S.W,B,to Howell Co. Disclosed
limits on toxic
materialIncluding
(10chromeor moreand items1
nickel)
and heavy metals
discharged
to river.
:!~~
14, 1966 S.W.i3.to Howell
Cu.
Effluent
not in compliance.
Plans,
specifications and
detailed plant layout for
chrome
recovery unit must
be
submitted. Immediate
action is
needed.
October 9, 1967
S.W.B,to Howell Co. Effluent
not in compliance.
Effluent must be satis-
factory
on a continuous
has~.s.
All operational
problems must be corrected
1b1 1~e~y1, 1968,
—5—
3.
Memorandum of Apparent Violations.
The data submitted
February 11, 1974, outlined apparent violations observed at
Respondent’s facilities after July
1,
1970. The evidence
establishes violations of Section 12(a) of the Act; Rules 1.03(a)
(c) and (d) of SWB—ll; Rules 1.08(10) (b) (1) and (3) o.f SWB—ll;
and Rule 1.08(15) of SWB-ll. The evidence also establishes
violations of Rules 203(a) and 403 of Chapter Three. The data
do not include any information regarding Rule 903 of Chapter
Three. We have excluded data regarding violation of Rule 1.08(10)
(b) (4). The data show the following “Explanation of Violations:
Environmental., Protection Act Company allows discharge of con—
Section 12(a)
taminants into environment caus-
ing water pollution. Toxic
materials in plant effluent results
in sterile environment downstream
from effluent. Ex. F.
S.W.B.
—
11, Rule 1.03(a):
Ex. G August 16, 1971.
(Bottom deposits)
Greyish white sediment on stream
bed. Brown flocculant material
(120 mg/I of suspended solids)
being discharged to river.
Ex. H December 1, 1971
whIte colored bottom deposits
observed in stream bed downstream
from plant effluent.
January 12, 1972
A greyish—white colored material
was observed on the stream bed ad-
jacent to (downstream from) the
enclosed discharge structure. This
material is attributable to the
company’s heating plant boiler
blowdown.
S.W.B.
—
11, Rule 1.03(c):
Ex. F July 16, 1971
(Color, odor)
~~rnicaI (septic) odors were
observed in river by Biologist
William Tucker.
Ex. G August 16, 1971
Stream discolored by turbid brown
flocculant material in plant
effluent. Stream discolored by
milky white material in plant
effluent.
January 12, 1972
A greyish—white colored material was
observed on
the stream bed.
S.W.B.
—
11, Rule 1.03(d):
Ex. E July 28, 1971
(Toxic substances)
Toxic material attributable to plant
effluent was detected
in
stream.
Aquabc~ environment is sterile. See:
PC lr~cs:t ~
(Ex.?)
—6—
Ex. G August 16, 1971
Toxic material attributable to
plant effluent was detected in
stream. Aquatic environment is
sterile. See Biological Survey
(Ex.F).
Ex. H December 1, 1971
Toxic material attributable to
plant effluent was detected in
stream. Aquatic environment is
sterile. See Biological Survey
(Ex.F).
January 12, 1972
Greyish-white colored material in
stream
bed could be toxic or harm-
ful to
human,
animal, plant or
aquatic life. Biological survey
shows aquatic
environment is
sterile downstream from company’s
effluents.
S.W.B.—1l, Rule 1.08 (10) (b)
(1): Ex.B July 6, 1971
(Removal of settleable solids) Suspended solids of 219 mg/i
were
detected in the plant effluent.
Ex. S JuIy 28, 1971
Suspended solids of 45 mg/l in
plant effluent.
Ex. G August 16,
1971
Suspended solids of
65 mg/i in
plant effluent,
Ex, H December 1, 1971
Suspended solids of 158 mg/i in
plant effluent.
S.W.B.—ll, Rule 1.08 (10) (b) (3) Ix. B July 6, 1971
(Removal of color, odor,
Effluent was a transparent green
turbidity)
color.
Ex. E July 28, 1971
Effluent was a yellow color.
Ex. F July 28, 1971
Effluent from
24” pipe was a
cloudy color.
Ex. G August 16, 1971
Effluent from
24” pipe was milky
white color. A chemical odor was
noticed.
Ex. H December 1, 1971
Effluent from 24” pipe was milky
white, turbid color. A chemical
odor was noticed.
January 12, 1972
Effluent from south tile
entering
sampling manhole (sampling point
8—1) was a slight greene color.
Effluent from 24”
concrete dis-
—7—
charge pipe to river (sampling
point B-4) was a slight milky
white turbid color.
S.W.B.
-
11, Rule 1.08(15):
Company has failed to provide
(Construction of improved
additional metals removal by
treatment works in
January 1969 in accordance with
accordance with time—
the approved schedule for com—
table)
pleting construction on Page 14
of S.W.3.
-
11.
Water Pollution Regulations,
September 27, 1972
Rule 403 (Effluent
Heavy layer of floating oil was
standards)
noticed in sampling manhole.
October 16, 1972
Minor amount of floating oil was
noticed in sampling manhole.
October 30, 1972
Minor amount of floating oil was
noticed in sampling manhole.
November 30, 1972
Effluent from 24” concrete dis-
charge line (sampling point B-4)
was a slightly milky white color.
A very slight chemical odor was
noticed. The effluent from the
south tile (sampling point B-l)
entering the sampling manhole was
a very turbid milky white color.
December 18, 1972
Effluent from 24” concrete dis-
charge line (sampling point B-4)
was a slightly milky white color.
A ‘slight chemical odor was noticed.
February 7, 1973
Effluent from 24” concrete dis-
charge line (sampling point B—4)
was a slight milky white color. A
slight chemical odor was noticed.
Water Pollution Regulations,
February 7, 1973
Rule 203(a) (Stream
Effluent from 24” concrete dis-
standards)
charge line (sampling point B—4)
was a slight milky white color
which, in turn, caused a discolor-
ation in the river.”
We hold that Respondent has violated Section 12(a) of the Act.
Rules 1.03(a), (c), and (d) of SWB—ll have also been contravened.
Rules 1.08 (10) (b) (1) and (3) have been broken by Respondent.
Respondent has breached 1,08(15). Rules 203(a) and~403 of Chapter
Three have been violated by the Respondent. Howell is also guilty
of breaking Rule 903 of Chapter Three by admitting in paragraph 6
of the Stipulation and Proposal For Settlement that a prima facie
case of violation of that Rule had been established. Since
11—575
—8—
Respondent submitted no evidence to rebut the presumption of a
Rule 903 violation, we hold that Respondent violated this Rule.
We accept the Settlement agreed to between the parties.
Payment of a $10,000 penalty and compliance within 30 days will
protect the public interest as to violations established from
the Complaint.
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. Howell shall, within 35 days of the adoption of this
Order, pay a penalty of $10,000 for its violation of the Act and
Rules set out in the Complaint. 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.
I, Christan L. r’Ioffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the t’44~dayof (fl~’1&&
,
1974, by a vote of
______
to 0
~~stanL.M,Cl~W~