ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 25, 1973

Environmental Protection Agency,

Complainant,

V.

)

PCB 72—226

Baird Chemical, Division of

Lonza, Incorporated,

Respondent.

Larry R. Eaton, Special Assistant Attorney General on

behalf of Complainant,

John C.~ Parkhurst, on behalf of Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Seaman):

On June 2, 1972, Complainant, Environmental Protection

Agency, filed this enforcement against Respondent, Baird

Chemical, Division of Lonza, Incorporated. Respondent

is the owner and operator of a chemical plant located in

Mapleton, Hollis Township, Peoria County, Illinois. Of

Respondent, the Agency alleges as follows:

1. Since July 1, 1970, Respondent has modified and

changed its holding lagoon and started constructing a

primary clarifier, which are facilities and/or equipment

capable of causing or contributing to water pollution

or designed

to prevent water pollution, without obtaining

a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency

in

violation of Section 12 (b) of the Environmental Protection

Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. ill 1/2

§

1012 (b) (1970)

),

hereinafter cited as “Act.”

2. Since July 1, 1970, and in particular on July 20,

1971, August 16, 1971 and August 18, 1971, Respondent caused,

threatened or allowed the discharge of contaminants from

its facilities into a natural drainage ditch which is

water of the State and thence immediately into Pond Lilly

Lake, which is a backwater of the Illinois River, and a

water of the State of Illinois, so as to cause or tend to

cause water pollution in Illinois; in violation of the

followihg:

9

—

609

---

—2—

1) Section 12 (a) of

the

Act;

2) Section 12 (b) of the Act;

3) Section 12 (c) of the Act;

4) Rules 1.03 and 1.08 of the Rules and

Regulations of

the

Sanitary Water

Board, SWB-l4, continued in effect

pursuant to Section 49 (c) of the Act.

3. Since August 8, 1966, Respondent has operated

its waste treatment facilities without the supervision

of a certified operator in violation of Rule 1.03 of

the Rules and Regulations of the Sanitary Water Board,

SWB-2, continued in effect

by

Section 49 (c) of the Act.

4. Since September

1,

1965, Respondent has failed

to submit operational reports in violation of Rule 1.03

of the Rules and Regulations of the Sanitary Water Board,

SWB—6, continued in effect by Section 49 (c) of the Act.

This cause comes before the Board with a Petition

for Settlement entered into between the respective

parties at the September 13, 1973, public hearing.

Respondent admits, for the purpose of producing a

settlement of this action only, to

the

violations as

alleged with the exception of 4. above. This Board so

finds.

Respondent requests that we approve, as an abatement

program, Resaondent’s Paragraph 8 Exhibit. Respondent’s

Paragraph 8 Exhibit is a five—page document which details

the actions already taken and those actions planned by

Respondent to achieve full compliance. The itemized steps

taken by Respondent from January, 1969, through July,

1973, have cost $4l6,000.00~ Plans and commitments made

for work relating to the waste water treatment system during

the next two years are anticipated to cost an additional

$345,000.00.

To date, the following abatement procedures have been

accomplished pursuant to the abatement plan detailed

in the Paragraph 8 Exhibit:

1. Installation of a new ditch to create a

salt pit.

2. Construction of two cooling towers.

3. Purchase of additional real estate

in order to

eliminate

all

concerns as to whether effluent

could harm adjacent land owners.

9

—

610

---

5. Construction of a holding lagoon, in order

to

eliminate

6. Installation

of surface condensers to

replace all direct contact condensers, in

order to reduce hydraulic and

BOD

load in

the waste water to an

absolute minimum.

7. Alteration of plant drainage, such that

part

of the storm waters will by-pass the

waste water system.

Pursuant to the Paragraph 8 Exhibit, Respondent

is currently working to increase the cooling water

capacity, which will provide water for its condensers,

and is doing additional work on plant drainage. Also

in accordance with

the

Paragraph 8 Exhibit, Respondent

will proceed with the necessary secondary treatment

system and/or evaporation system and/or recirculation

system once the results of the current flow-reduction

work

are known. Completion is scheduled for early

in 1975, at an estimated cost of $250,000.00. Finally,

Respondent states

that

it is conmiitted to take those

steps which are necessary to provide for zero waste

water effluent from its facilities of those steps

that

are

necessary to provide effluent or such quality

that it will meet the appropriate quality standards.

The Board approves the Petition for Settlement and

the abatement plan submitted by Respondent and reconvuended

by the

Agency.

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

Respondent, Baird Chemical, Division of Lonza, Incorporated

1. Implement the program described in the

Paragraph 8 Exhibit, prepared by

and

bearing

the signature of Mr. Richard Ray, Plant

Manager at Respondent’s Mapleton plant, and

conform to the timetable and deadlines set

2. Post a performance bond with the Agency, in a

form satisfactory to the Agency, binding

Respondent to a

bond

in the

amount

of $20,000,

to assure substantial compliance with the

•—eu

---

program described in Paragraph 8 Exhibit.

3. Pay a penalty in the

sum

of $1,000.00, within

thirty-five days

of

thedate

of this Order

approving

this

Settlement Petition to the

State of Illinois, Fiscal services section,

EPA, 2200

Churchill

4. Investigate as soon as possible to determine

if any seepage from Respondent’s waste water

treatment system is leaking into Mapleton

Creek. This investigation will be

conducted

in cooperation with

the

Agency. If any such

seepage is occurring, Respondent will take

all reasonable steps to correct the problem.

5.

Maintain

in the event that a discharge from itz

facilities does occur, assure that such discharge

will meet all applicable standards. Before

any discharge from its facilities into Mapleton

Creek

or Pond Lilly Lake occurs, Respondent

will notify the Agency seven days in advance

of

any

discharge in order that tests can be

made to determine whether the proposed effluent

is in compliance with the applicable effluent

standards.

6. Submit quarterly reports, commencing Jan. 1, 1974,

to the Agency, regarding the progress of the

program described in Paragraph 8 Exhibit, until

7. Attend a conference to be held between the

parties including representatives of the Permit

Section of the Division of Water Pollution Control

of the Environmental Protection Agency, at

which time it shall be determined what permits

are required by the Agency.

All

such permits

so required, will be sought by Respondent, and

all reasonable and necessary efforts will be made

to obtain same. These permits will include an

operating permit, and

a certified operator, for

its present facilities (which shall be considered

waste water treatment facilities), as well as those

9—612

---

—5—

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution

Control Board, certify that the above Opinion and

Order w s adopted by the Board on the

h~’~’

clay

of

~i.

,

1973 by a vote of ~

to c~

n7~1~

9

—

613

---

S