ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May
    23, 1972
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 72-98
    TEXACO, INC.
    Dissenting Opinion by Jacob U. Dumeile
    I
    was not present for the vote or final discussion on this case because
    of a simultaneous meeting of the Phosphorus Technical Committee of the Lake
    Michigan Enforcement Conference of which I am a member.
    Settlements and stipu’ations ought to be approached
    with
    care because
    by definition they avoid the hearing process which in this case should have
    provided much more information, From the facts presented I cannot judge whether
    the $200 penalty is adequate.
    The essential first fact that is missing is the strength of contaminants
    injected into the Olney water supply and the period of this contamination. No where
    in the stipulation is a test given of the Olney water as delivered to the unsuspecting
    residents during those days around March 5-8, 1971. If we compare the downstream
    East Fork Creek samples analysis with U~S. Public Health Service Drinking Water
    Standards for a drinking supply we find gross contamination.
    The table below
    illustrates this point:
    March 8,
    Downstream
    1971
    Ratio
    Sample
    Supply Standard
    Sample: Standard
    Chlorides
    Total Solids
    Alkalinity
    Iron
    Lead
    Phenol
    1, 250 ppm
    3, 650 ppm
    1, 700 ppm
    2, 0 ppm
    0. 08 ppm
    52 ppm
    250 ppm
    500 ppm
    400 ppm
    O. 3 ppm
    0, 05 ppm
    0, 001 ppm
    500
    1730
    425
    667
    160
    5, 200, 000
    We can assume that the iron, being lower in the downstream sample
    (2. 0 ppm) than in the upstream sample (4. 2 ppm) was probably removed by
    Parameter
    4 —
    555
    whatever iron removal process (perhaps aeration) that Olney has to treat its
    supply unless the other contaminants caused an upset to occur, But what we do
    not know is whether the contaminated downstream sample is a fair. analysis of
    what went into the Olney water mains. The City of Olney perhaps had a reservoir
    from which some dilution was obtained. Perhaps there are other surface water
    inputs to East Fork Creek between the well site and the water supply intake that
    served to dilute these extremely high levels,
    The Texaco Company~sown analysis seems to show high sodium concentra-
    tions. More than 12 of the discharge was in sodium compounds, But while we
    know that a new sodium standard for drinking water supplies at 200 ppm will
    probably appear in the July 1972 revision of the US PHS standards we again do not
    know how much sodium got into Olney~swater mains, Persons with heart condi-
    tions or hypertension are often put on a low sodium diet and perhaps there
    were some ill effects from this pollution incident, Also the phenol level was
    52, 000 times the standard. Chlorination, a standard practice at water works,
    would generate chlorphenois, Again we have no information on possible ill-causing
    levels of phenols or chiorphenols.
    The data discussed previously show some discrepancy if one tries to
    compute a dilution ratio between the well effluent and the stream. The Texaco
    analysis shows 2, 670 ppm phenols and the downstream sample shows 52 ppm for
    an apparent dilution of 5L 4 times. The lead from the well is reported at
    213 ppm and the lead added (downstream minus upstream) is 0. 05 ppm for an
    apparent dilution of 4260 times, Why the two dilution ratios do not agree we
    do not know on the basis of the sketchy stipulation here submitted.
    We also do not know the expenditures made by Texaco in this case,
    What did the ~‘rebate on the monthly for the period of time the water was
    affected1 amount to in dollars? What did it cost to clean up the area of the
    spill? We should not fall into the precedent of saying as we do in this case
    that if one pollutes a water supply and then pays for the non-use plus perhaps
    minor cleanup costs that this excuseâ the pollution. That is like saying no
    prosecution will follow a burglar who returns the stolen goods when caught so
    long as the jimmied door is repaired.
    There are three other aspects to this case that are disturbing to me,
    First the case was filed on March 16, 1972 after occurring March 5-6, 1971.
    In that year’s delay it is possible that citizens who were angry then or made
    ill at this unwarranted pollution of their drinking water might have forgotten
    about it by the time of the legal notice of the action. The cases ought to be
    filed promptly after incidents occur of this importance. Justice delayed is
    still justice denied.
    4 —
    Secondly, on the same day of this decision, the Board accepted a stipula-
    tion in EPA v. Rex Chainbelt, Inc. (PCB 72-86) for permitting their plating opera-
    tion to leak and discharge cyanide and heavy metals to St. Joseph’s Creek and
    entered a stipulated penalty of $2, 000, No water supply was contaminated
    nor did human beings drink contaminated water because of this accident,
    Yet
    the agreed penalty was ten times as much as in the Texaco case!
    Thirdly, the Board deleted from its Water Quality Regulations adopted
    March 7, 1972 a provision to require mandatory catchment facilities from
    facilities such as tank farms, which might leak and pollute. We do not know
    on this stipulation whether catchment provision had been made beforehand.
    If it was not then it would appear that. the Agency ought to consider proposing
    such a regulation for all pollution prone souràes near water supply intakes.
    I would not have accepted this stipulation but would have referred it back
    for additional information pertinent to the points mentioned above,
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,
    hereby certify the above Dissenting Opinion was submitted on the
    ~Q3
    day of
    May, 1972.
    Board Member
    4 —
    557
    S
    I

    Back to top