ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November 28. 1972
    )
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEcTION AGENCY
    )
    )
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 72-76
    )
    )
    FANSTEEL, INC. and the CITY OF NORTH CHICAGO
    )
    )
    OPINION OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Dumelle)
    This opinion is In support of an order entered by the Board on October 31,
    1972 accepting a Stipulation and Proposal submitted by Fansteel, Inc. (Fansteel)
    and the Agency on June 14, 1972 as modified by a letter received October 31,
    1972.
    Complaint was entered by the Agency against Fansteel and the City of
    North Chicago on March 1, 1972 charging Fansteel with causing water pollution
    Sect. 12(a) of the Environmental Protection Act); violations of Rule 1.03(a),
    Cc). and (d) of SWB-14; and violations of Rule 1.01 of SWB-5 (cyanide discharge)
    and charging North Chicago with allowing the discharge of the Fansteel
    contaminants thus causing water pollution. On June 14, 1972 a public hearing
    was held in North Chicago at which the Stipulation was presented for public
    comment. There was no adverse comment and In due time the Stipulation was
    presented to the Board.
    Fansteel has two plants in North Chicago employing 700 persons manufacturing
    electrical contacts using precious metals among other materials. The South
    Plant is some 65 years old and includes processes of nickel plating, acid
    cleaning and tumbling and burnishing. The North Plant dates from 1942 and
    contains processes of metal cleaning, tungsten cutting, wire and tube drawing,
    tungsten powder reduction and generates effluents from the boiler house and
    laboratories.
    Effluents from these two plants were discharged to Pettibone Creek
    containing settleable solids, cyanide, metals, acid and caustic wastes.
    Biological surveys performed in 1968 and 1970 have indicated detrimental
    effects from the Fansteel discharges to Pettibone Creek. The turbid wastes
    from the north plant and the toxic wastes from the south plant affect the north
    6— 296
    -2-
    ln’ztnc’h
    anti
    main
    trunk
    of
    the stream
    to its mouth Ui
    the (;reat
    l.akes Naval
    rrzthiisig Suit ion llarl)or. l’he reaches of the creek
    from
    the south plant
    outhill to anti somewhat beyond Sheridan Road are best described as a hiologir:~~
    tk’st,rt. Tb.’
    creek does not.
    fuLj~r’ecti’. er before it terminates at
    the
    harbor.
    I El
    ‘A
    Slate mciii
    ot
    September
    25,
    1972.
    PP.
    ~— 10).
    The’ Si ijuti :i lion pros i des a ml 11w 13 ‘arcl has ordered that Fansteel will
    Jn’et
    reai liii’ Stnnh l’iant c’ffl uern 1t
    permit
    discharge of al) of its effluent
    to
    the North Short’ Sanii:u t•v 1)1st ci .‘i as specified in Exhibit F of these
    proceedings
    wit bin 22 weeks ,ifler an Agency
    permit is issued. Similarly,
    the I3onrcl
    has ‘)rclercd thai ihe
    North
    Plant pretreat
    its
    effluent
    in order that
    ii niay lU’ clisehargc’tI It; XSSI) to In’ clone within 26
    weeks
    after the Agency
    ju’rniit is issincI.
    In first clisrussiiig thi’
    Stipuiaiion,
    the
    Board
    has
    two main concerns
    heft
    ‘re
    z;ppro~lug ii
    .
    ‘liii’ fj y.~r. ‘nrc
    rut
    dealt with
    the effects of’ the F’ansteel
    ‘‘ill
    rc’ni upon ihc’
    North Chic’agt; St’ zig.’ treat
    inent plant
    of
    the North Shore
    Sanitary J)islru.i
    both
    as to
    possii)Jc? upseis
    of
    the
    biological
    treatment and
    po.$si1~1ehydniiUitt overloading.
    On .Iu)
    25, 1972 the
    I3oard
    entered an order
    ci’
    ;uesting additional dat a ti’ont tin’ Agency.
    TIn’ Agency furnished on September 25, 1972 an extensive theoretical
    analysis showing thai the biological treat mt’nt would not be harmed. It
    jt:stifie’tI the additional hydraulic load on
    ihe plant in spite of the
    Board’s
    prohibition of other new
    c’onneetions
    to it by the
    fact
    that this diversion
    of
    the I.’nnslec’I effluent
    cnn
    of Pettihonc’ Creek ~vould enable
    that
    body of
    water
    to recover and would eliminate thc’ present health hazard
    of
    toxic
    ~‘iastes in rhe (‘reek.
    ‘(‘he sc’c’ond
    c’onctern
    c)f a majority of the Board had to do with the amount
    and
    nature
    of the stipulated penalty
    to
    be paid. The .June 14, 1972 original
    siipulation provided that Fansteel would conduct certain research on the carbon
    adsorpi ion treat mc’nt of cyanide
    at
    the South Hunt even though not necessary
    to permit
    the effluent discharge to the
    North Shore Sanitary District’s plant.
    I)ata on the research was deemed to be of value to the Agency (Pan. CL
    If (hi’ expenditures for this research program did not exceed 825, 000 then
    the difference between the figures would be paid to the State of Illinois (Para. 1)).
    The majority of the Board felt that Agency research should not be financed
    through, in effect, a penalty clue the State. And since it was anticipated that,
    in fact, the research expenditures would exceed $25, 000, therefore no specific
    penalty would accrue to the State even though damage to Pettibonc Creek from
    water J)oll ut ion had occurred.
    6—296
    S
    •~
    •
    ‘—
    •1,. .,,...1
    • :
    ~
    i
    ~
    •~
    ‘~‘t. •.‘?
    •
    S
    ‘
    •
    •‘
    .
    I
    • ~Itt’,,iiS
    ‘
    • ~
    •s,. ,
    ‘‘Ii
    •
    —
    ‘S
    —
    ‘-
    ;r
    •
    ‘S
    ,
    —.
    .
    •
    .
    -
    ••
    I~~,,
    .
    •
    .
    •
    •.
    —
    S•
    4
    •p
    •
    ••
    S
    •
    • ‘I
    ~‘
    at’
    J
    •
    .5.
    •
    •
    ‘
    —I.
    ~
    i’il
    ‘p
    ‘1
    (‘li!
    c.~ ~‘
    Ii
    ~
    C •,~tr~uI.~
    ‘
    r’I
    - a7

    Back to top