ILLINO:s POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

28, 1974

AGENCY

OPINION 

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Marder)

action involves an enforcement case brought by the Environmen-

tal Protection Agency against Glidden-Durkee Corporation. The action,

first filed on November 29, 1971 and amended January 19, 1972, and

March 2, 1972, alleges violation of both air and water pollution reg-

ulations. Violations of Section 9 (a) of the Environmental Protection

Act are alleged to have occurred on certain dates between October 1,

and November 29, 1971, during the operation of Respondent’s

waste lagoon. Violations of SWB—8 Rules 1~.O3 (c) 

1.08, 1.09, 12 (a),

and 12 (b) of the Environmental Protection Act were also alleged in

regards to the water pollution charge.

Glidden-Durkee owns and operates an industrial foods plant (edible

oil refining) south of Joliet, Illinois, near the city of Channahon.

Said facility has been in operation since 1971, and discharges its

waste stream into the Des Plaines River. Respondent alleges that dur-

ing the process of site selection, they noted that no municipal sewage

facilities were available. It was then decided by Respondent to con-

struct private waste treatment facilities. It is the alleged malfunctions

of these facilities that gave rise to the instant complaint.

After lengthy and unaccountable delay, hearing was held on October 2,

(R. 60).

time a 

—2—

was received by the Board.

The Board in researching the record on this matter can find no reason

for the prolonged delay between the abovementioned sequence of eventJ.

It is noted, however, that Respondent did not stand still during this

time period, and an ongoing design-construction program has been carried

out. This indicates that while a long period of time expired between

the original filing of the complaint and this final Order, the public

interest was considered and a diligent attempt at abatement has occurred.

As will be outlined below, the Stipulation. agreed upon will be accepted

by the Board as a ~ina1 settlement in this matter.

Discussion of Violations: Respondent has detailed for the Board the

nature of and factors leading to its discharge problems, as well as its

proposed abatement plans (Joint Exhibit 1 and 2).

Respondent alleges that the original treatment plant was based on

their best engineering judgment as to the kinds and amounts of waste to

be treated. The design was unique in Respondent~s opinion and presented

novel questions which led to a relatively high degree of risk. Resnondent

presently has Phase I of its treatment facilities on stream (as of July

30, 1973). Phase II is presently under construction and is anticipated

for completion by April 30, 1974.

Before the filing of this complaint, Respondent claims that violations

of 9 (a) occurred due to unexpected upsets in their treatment lagoons.

Emissions of hydrogen sulfide gas were discernible in neighboring commun-

ities on various occasions. Respondent traced these emissions to its use

of alum as a coagulating agent as well as poor oxygen transfer due to

sudden waste surges. The use of alum was discontinued in October 1971,

and a tighter control over waste loading has also been instituter~ Re-

spondent also details violations of SWE-8 by stating that the following

levels of contaminants ha~ebeen observed:

Constituent   

High     

Low

Req. SWB-8

BUD5    

1530+ mg/i   

90 mg/i   

20-40 mg/I

TSS

700+ mg/I   

54 mg/I   

25—45 mg/l

Fecal   

200,000,000/   

12,000/

Coliform  

100 ml       

100 ml

There is also a discussion of waste stream discoloration and the pres-

ence of floating material.

Respondent alleges and the Agency concurs (stipulation Paragraph 12)

that the proposed settlement and abatement plan will serve to abate the

above pollution and bring Respondent into compliance with present Board

regulations.

The Board finds that the proposed settlement, when considered along

with the exhibits tendered, the record of hearing, and consideration of

1’~2

Section 33 (c) of the Environmental Protection Act conclusively prove

violations as charged by the Agency and constitute a fair and equitable

settlement. Said settlement will be so accepted and the terms therein

will constitute the final Order of this Board.

This Opinion 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 shall by April 30, 1974, be in full compliance with

any and all applicable rules or regulations of the Illinois

Pollution Control Board. Such compliance shall be accomplished

by implementation of Respondent’s plan as outlined in Joint

Exhibit #2 as referred to above. A final report shall be sub-

mitted to the Agency by April 30, 1974.

2. In the event that Respondent, its consultant, and the Agency

in Exhibit 2 are required to obtain compliance, Respondent shall

take such steps.

3. Respondent shall apply to the Agency for all applicable install-

ation and operating permits as may be 

4. Respondent shall not exceed the fol1~wingdischarge contaminant

levels during the installation of its effluent control program:

a) BOD      

400 mg/i

o) TSS5      

300 mg/i

c) Fecai coliform 30,000/100 ml

d) Color     

White/gray

e) All visible material shall be promptly removed

by Respondent from its waste stream

5. For violations of air and water regulations enumerated above,

Respondent shall pay to the State of Illinois the sum of $20,000

within 30 days of the date of this Order. Penalty payment by

certified check or money order payable to the State of Illinois

shall be made to: Fiscal Services Division, Illinois Environ-

mental Protection Agency, 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Ill-

inois 62706.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted by the Board on the

28th day of March, 1974, by a vote of 5 to 0.

663