ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 21,
1971
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
v.
)
PCB 71—312
CUSTOM FARM SERVICES,
INC.
Dennis
K.
Muncy,
attorney for the Environmental Protection Agency
John Lovett, attorney
for Custom Farm Services,
Inc.
Opinion and Order of the Board
(by Samuel
R. Aldrich):
On October
7,
1971,
the Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”)
filed
a complaint against Custom Farm Services,
Inc., alleging
violations of Rules and Regulations SWB-14
and of
the Environmental
Protection Act
(“Act”).
Respondent owns
and operates
a plant for
the manufacture and storage of chemical fertilizers,
located in the
unincorporated municipality of Leverett, Champaign County,
Illinois.
The complaint alleges that Respondent:
1)
caused or allowed the
discharge of
a contaminant, consisting of chemical fertilizer,
from
its plant
so as to cause water pollution
in the Saline Drainage Ditch
and an unnamed tributary thereto,
in violation of Section 12(c)
of the
Act;
2)
caused
a failure
to meet minimum water quality standards
by discharging toxic industrial substances in violation of Rule
l.03(d)
of SWB—14;
3)
caused
a failure
to meet minimum conditions
for
aquatic
life sectors by discharging toxic substances into the waters
in excess of the 48—hour median tolerance limits for
fish,
in
violation
of Rule
1.05(d)
of SWB-14;
4)
caused the death of fish
in the Saline Drainage Ditch and an unnamed tributary thereto.
The nature of the incident which led to the filing of
the complaint
is outlined in
a memorandum
(Exhibit A)
from John
R. Crawford, an
investigator for the Agency,
to his supervisor,
K.
L.
Baumann.
The
incident involved an accidental discharge of fertilizer from a rup-
tured storage
tank on May
3,
1971.
The discharge was reported to
the Agency by Jim Merriman, District Supervisor
for Respondent.
The spillage of fertilizer occurred about
75 yards from a stream
tributary to the Saline Drainage Ditch.
Darrell Ackermann,
Plant
Manager of Respondent’s Leverett Branch,
estimated that approxi-
mately 10 tons of fertilizer were
lost during the spill.
Material
from the tank was observed entering the stream and laboratory
analysis
of water samples confirmed the source’of the contaminants.
Dead fish were observed at several points downstream from the point
of discharge ofthe
contaminants.
An estimated 4842 fish were killed,
most of which were minnows.
‘According to the schedule of the Depart-
ment of Conservation,Division of Fisheries~the value of
the fish
killed is $162.34.
—
309
On November
29,
1971, the parties
to the case submitted
a Stipulation
and Settlement Agreement.
Both parties stipulate that the factual
allegations contained in
the complaint are true.
The parties request
that in lieu of
a hearing,
the Board accept the stipulation and
proposed settlement which contains
the following:
entry of
an order
directing Respondent to cease and desist from further violations;
assessment of
a penalty of $2000;
reimbursement to the
State for the
value of
the fish killed; construction of facilities sufficient to
contain any possible spillage of hazardous materials
in the future,
such facilities to be in operation by May
1, l972~
submission of
plans and specifications for the facilities to the Agency for its
approval; posting of a performance bond in
the amount of $10,000
guaranteeing timely construction and operation of the necessary
facilities.
The parties state in the Agreement that they believe the settlement
is fair and just and that it would be in the best interests of the
public for the Board to approve the settlement and enter
the order
requested by
the parties without further hearing.
We heartily agree.
We have stated previous’y that a reduction
in the
time and expense of
litigation
is
a desirable goal
(see EPA v. Charles
R. Rhodes,
PCB
71-53,
September 16,
1971).
Section 333 of the Procedural Rules of the Board
outlines settlement procedures
to be followed in enforcement proceedings.
The use of
such procedures
is to be encouraged.
We are persuaded
that the settlement in the instant case
is fair
and reasonable.
The
terms of the proposed order are entirely acceptable
to us.
Provi-
sion
is made both
for the payment of an adequate money penalty and
for the future protection of
the environment.
The Hearing Officer
invited public testimony on the conditions of the stipulation and
agreement.
None was submitted.
We
shall enter an order in complete
accordance with that contained in the settleBlent agreement drawn up
by the parties
to the case.
ORDER
1.
Custom Farm Services,
Inc.
shall cease and desist from violations
of Rules
and Regulations
SWB-l4 and of the Environmental Protection
Act at its Leverett,
Illinois, plant.
2.
By May
1,
1972, Custom Farm Services,
Inc.
shall construct and
place in operation at its Leverett,
Illinois,
plant such facilities
as
are necessary
to contain any future spillage of hazardous
materials.
~—31O
3.
Custom Farm Services,
Inc.
shall submit plans and specifications
for the aforementioned facilities to the Environmental Protection
Agency for approval, which authorization shall not be unreasonably
withheld, prior to the commencement of the construction of said
facilities.
4.
Custom Farm Services,
Inc.
shall, within
30 days of the date of
entry of this order,
post a bond in the amount of $10,000.00
in
a form acceptable to the Environmental Protection Agency, such
bond to be forfeited in
the event the provisions of paragraph
2
of this order are not met.
5.
Custom Farm’Services,
Inc.
shall, within 10 days
of the entry
of this order,
pay to the State of Illinois for deposit in the
Fish
and Game Fund in the State Treasury, the sum of $162.34.
6.
CustOm Farm Services,
Inc.
shall, within
10 days of the entry
of this order,
pay to the State of Illinois,
the sum,
in penalty,
of $2000.00.
I,
Christan Moffett, Acting Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, certify that Dr.
Samuel
R. Aldrich submitted the above opinion
and order this 21st day of December,
1971 by
a vote of
4—0.
3
—
311