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~

    Back to top