ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
May 23, 1972
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
#72—98
V.
TEXACO, INC.,
a corporation
OPINION AND ORDER OF
THE
BOARD (BY
SAMUEL T. LAWTON, JR.)
Complaint was filed by the Environmental Protection Agency against
Texaco, Inc., Respondent, alleging
that on or about March 5 through
March 14, 1971, Respondent operated a salt water disposal well near
Olney, Illinois, in a manner which caused, threatened or allowed tho
discharge of iron, lead and other contaminants into the East Fork
Creek, the tributary of East Fork River, so as to cause or
tend
to
cause water pollution, either alone or in combination with matter from
other sources, in violation of Section
12(a)
of the Environmental Pro~
tection Act (“Acts’); that Respondent allowed the discharge of waste
waters of an alkaline nature into said creek in violation of Rule 105(b)
of Rules and Regulations SWB-14 of the Sanitary Water Board; and allowed
the discharge of oil and other floating contaminants into said creek,
in violation of Rule 103(b) of SWB-14, thereby violating Section 12(a)
of the Act, and that from March 5, 1971 until the date of the filing
of the complaint, Respondent has operated said salt water disposal
well in a manner which threatens to pollute the waters of Illinois and
creates a hazard, in violation of Sections 12(a) and (d) of the Act.
A cease and desist order and penalties in the maximum statutory amount
are sought.
A stipulation was entered into between the Environmental Protec—
tion Agency and Texaco, Inc. setting forth that on September 3, 1963,
the Department of Mines and Minerals of the State of Illinois issued a
permit to Respondent to drill or convert a well for water input on the
Scherer lease, located near
Olney,
Illinois, which was utilized for
salt water injection continuously until March 8, 1971. In the course
of operating its several wells on the Soberer lease, Respondent ex-
tracted brine water and oil mixture from the earth which was separated,
the brine being discharged into a large metal tank and then pumped
to
the
injection well previously described.
On or about March 5, 1971, a mechanical failure in the injection
well
pump
resulted
in leakage and a quantity of brine liquid from the
holding tank escaped into East Fork Creek, a tributary of the East Fork
River, at a point near
the
Olney Public Water Department~s inlet,
4~-551
which resulted in strong odor and bad taste in Olney’s drinking water.
The
leak was discovered on March 7, 1971 and water samples taken in
the East Fork Creek, the results of which were as follows:
Upstream
Downstream
Ph
7.1
11.6
Chlorides
85 PPM
1250 PPM
Total Solids by Electrical Conductivity 540
8,650
Alkalinity
200
1700
Iron
4.2 PPM
2.0 PPM
Lead
0.03 PPM
0.08 PPM
Phenol
52 PPM
On March 11, 1971, Respondent’s District Superintendant informed
the Environmental Protection Agency of the following analysis of mater-
ial being injected into the well:
Ph
12.1
Specific gravity
1.194
Acid oils
11
NaOH
6.17
NaSO4
6.22
Phenols
2670 PPM
Lead
213 PPM
The Stipulation further provides that if the Mayor of Olney was
called as a witness, he would testify that upon the discharge from the
injection well being discovered, Respondent dispatched a work crew
to the area, and that subsequently, Respondent “had men working around
the clock to clean up the area where the discharge occurred and took
steps to dam the affected area, and then pumped and hauled away all dis-
charge which had collected, and eventually stripped two feet of top soil
whichBothwasthealsoEnvironmentalhauled away
Protectionand
disposedAgencyof.’1
and the State Department
of Mines and Minerals were immediately notified upon learning the source
of discharge.
The Mayor would also testify that the City of Olney was fully compen-
sated by Respondent by which payment each water user was able to obtain
a rebate on the monthly billing for the period of time the water was
affected.
On July 9, 1971, the injection well was purchased by the City of
Olney and permanently plugged. The Stipulation further notes that
Respondent has “spent substantial sums of money in cleaning up the dis-
charge and compensating those who were adversely affected by it.”
4
—
552
Neither party has received any indication that members of the
public wish to testify in this case.
The Order tendered in the stipulation provides for the payment
of a $200.00 penalty. While the amount of the penalty may be rela-
tively small in consideration of the extent of the violation,
it appears from the Stipulation that the Respondent took immediate
and successful steps, at considerable cost to itself, to abate
the discharge and also compensated those who were damaged as a
consequence thereof. The purchase and tapping of the well by
the City of Olney terminates its pollution potential so far as
Respondent is concerned. Further, where the parties have agreed
to the disposition of the case and the proposal is reasonable
and will abate future pollution problems, we are disposed to
enter our order in accordance with the understanding of the
parties. Cf. Environmental Protection Agency v. Granite City
Steel Company, J7O~34, Opinion dated May
3, 1972. We
accept
the Stipulation and enter our Order accordingly.
This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Board.
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that penalty
in the amount of $200.00 is assessed against Texaco, Inc. for
violation of Section 12(a) and 12(b) of the Environmental Protec-
tion Act and Sections 103(b) and 105(b) of the Sanitary Water
Board Rules and Regulations SWB-l4, Said amount shall be payable
to the State of Illinois and sent to the Environmental Protection
Agency, Fiscal Services Division, 2200 Churchill Drive, Spring-
field, Illinois 62706, within thirty-five days from the entry
of this Order.
I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Bo~d, certify
that the above Opinion and Order was adopted on the ~~day
of May, 1972, by a vote of
____
to ~
4
—
553