ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL 

BOARD

November 22, 1971

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

)

PCB

71—246

NETTER

OIL COMPANY

)

Mr. Prescott Bloom, Soecial Assistant

Attorney

General, and

Mr. Timothy Elder, Attorney General Intern, aopeared on behalf

of the Environmental Protection Agency

Mr. Lyman R,

Fort,

appeared on behalf

the respondent

OPINION

TEE BOARD (by

Mr.

Kissel)

On Auqus.t 19, 1971, the Environmental Protection Agency (the

“Aqency”) filed

comolaint. with

the

Board

against

the

Yetter

Oil

Company (“letter)

in which the Agency alleged

that

letter had, on

Anril 16, 1971, allowed oil bc he discharged into an unnamed tri~-

buearv of Troublesome Creek in violation of Section 12 (a) of the

Environmental Protection

Act, and Rules 1.03(b) and 1,03(d) of the

reptdations

aoplicahle

to the intrastate

waters of the State, SWB—14,

Th~

Aeency further alleged that oil was still visible in the stream

en Na 6 and May

in violation of the Act and the same Rules,

its wr~tton answer, filed before the hearing

letter admitted the

exiatence and auplicability

Of the Act and the cited Rule of SWB—l4,

hut denied that it was the person that had discharged oil into the

unnamed tributary.

A hearing was held on the complaint before

Howard

S.

Miller, Hearth:: Officer,

on October

21,

1971, an Macomb,

Illinois..

Yetzcu

operates

oil

field in Section 16 of LaMoine Township

in McDonoueh County near Colmar, Illinois.

letter pumps about 35,-~ to

40,000 barrels ol:

01~L

per year trom a fielct tnat aas been an opera~

tion since about 1914,

fetter wholesales the oil after it is pumped.

all

there

are about. 90 wells on the site.

While Netter denied that it had caused a soill of: oil in its

answer to the Agency’s complaint, it admitted that it had had an oil

leak fror one of its pipes on

or about 

April 16, 197?, This testi-’

rnonv

in the record leaves no doubt that Netter was responsible

for

the oil which was present in as. unnamed ditch which flowed into Trouble-

some Creek and was present there.

The 7~gency reoresentateve

found

upon inspection that one of the ripen near the dl tch had been recently

—

119

repaired and Yetter admitted that it had sent a crew of men to not

only repair the leak, but to clean up the stream as well. Yetter.’s

methods to clean up the stream,however, were not successful enough

to keep the oil from floating down Troublesome Creek where it was

seen 

by a 

fisherman, Sidney Dowacter. Yetter tried to dam the un-

named ditch to stop the oil from floating into and on the Creek, but

apparently the dam leaked as well and the pipes on the lower part

of the berm carried oil as well as water into Troublesome Creek.

Yetter also used straw in an effort to soak up the oil, and while

this was successful in reducing the amount that went into Trouble-

some Creek, it did not completely ~    

the discharge.

There was little testimony in the record as to the damage done

to the Creek, or the aquatic life living therein. There is no question

that the spill was visible, since 

it

was first reported by Mr. Dowacter.

He saw the oil on the water while fishing on the Creek. He also

testified (and this 

is

really the only testimony on “damage” done by

the spill) that he was not able to fish on the Creek for about two

months after the spil?,.~and that in his experience as a fisherman

and fish eater, any fish in the stream would have an “oily” taste.

The initial question to be determined by the Board is whether

there was a violation of the Act or the regulations promulgated there-

under, The Agency alleged that Yetter was guilty of violating Sec-

tion 12(a) of the Act, and Rules 1.03(b) and (d) of SWB-’l4. Section

12(a) of the Act prohibits the discharge of any contaminant into the

environment of the State so as to cause “water pollution”, which is

defined in Section 3(a) of the Act. Rule 

1.03 of 

SWB’—l4 provides as

follows:

“These Minimum Criteria shall apply to all waters

at all places and all times in addition to specific en-’

tenia applicable to specific sectors:

(b) Free from floating debris, oil, scum and other

floating materials attributable to municipal, indus-

trial or other discharges in amounts sufficient to

be unsightly or deleterious;.

(d) Free from substances attributable to municipal,

industrial, or other discharges in concentrations

or combinations which are toxic or harmful to human,

animal, plant or aquatic life.”

3— 120

It is clear from the record that Yetter violated each of the provi-

sions of the rules and the basic prohibitions of the Act itself,

The uncontrolled discharge of oil into the waters of the State as

described by the various witnesses in the record certainly is

“water pollution” as contemplated by the Act, The testimony was

that the stream was not usable for a period of at least two months

after the spill had occurred and this was certainly “detrimental

to the recreational” use of the stream, which was solely due to the

discharge of contaminants, namely, oil into the stream, Section 12(a)

also was violated in that the rules and regulations of the Board

were violated, Rules 1,03(b) and Cd) were both breached when the

discharge of oil occurred, Both Rules make it illegal for anyone

to discharge oil in the quantities discharged by Yetter in this

case. While there is some dispute as to the amount of oil which

reached the stream (one witness estimated it at about 25 to 30

barrels and letter calculated the loss at 13.94 barrels), there is

no dispute that a significant amount of oil reached the stream, It

is Yetter~sobligation, as a handler and pumper of oil, to see that

this does not occur. letter failed in its obligation under the Act

and the Rules of the Board and therefore must be penalized. We do

consider the spillage of oil a serious matter. If allowed to go

unchecked, it could ruin the Illinois waterways. However, in this

case we must consider the fact that the spill was indeed small

(although visible) and that Yetter did exert efforts to reduce the

effect of the spill on the stream, It is also noteworthy that

there was no specific allegation or proof that the oil spill in-

jured the fish in any way. No fish kill was reported. With all 

of

those facts in mind we feel that Yetter should pay $500 in penalty

for allowing the discharge of oil into the streams of Illinois. We

also feel (and will so order) that a cease and desist order should

be entered against letter so that future discharges of this kind

will not occur.

This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board.

ORDER

After consideration of the testimony and the exhibits, the

Board hereby orders the following:

1.  Yetter shall cease and desist from discharging any oil

into the waters of the State which discharge shall re-

sult in a violation of the Environmental Protection

Act or the regulations promulgated thereunder.

—

121

2.  letter shall pay to the State of Illinois, in

penalty, the amount of $500 for the violation of

the Act and the applicable regulations as out-

lined in the opinion of the Board,

I, Christan Moffett, Acting Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, certify that the Board adopted the above Opinion

and Order on this ~e~ day of November, 1971,

c

/1~

Christan M ett,

Acting Cl’erk

3— 122