ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July
12, 1979
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
V.
)
PCB 79-19
JACK CHASE, d/b/a ABCOA THINNERS,
and MICHAEL CHASE,
Respondents.
MR. BRIAN E. REYNOLDS,
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON
BEHALF
OF
THE
COMPLAINANT.
MR.
JACK
D.
CHASE
AND
MR.
MICHAEL
CHASE
APPEARED
PRO
SE.
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
Dr.
Satchell):
This matter comes before the Board upon a complaint filed
January
31,
1979 by the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
against Respondent Jack Chase d/b/a Abcoa Thinners
(Resp.), and
Michael Chase.
The complaint charges a violation of Section 21(f)
of the Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
in connection with the
transportation and disposal of about seventy-five barrels
of ink
waste
in a bean field on or about September 23,
1978.
A hearing
was held in Belleville,
St. Clair County,
on May 2,
1979.
Re-
spondents appeared pro se and Mr. Jack Chase indicated that they
were willing to pro~d~ithout an attorney
(R.
4,
8).
A com-
petitor of Abcoa Thinners, a Mr. Haney, voluntarily left the
hearing after
Mr. Jack Chase objected to his presence
(R.
5).
The Hearing Officer did not order him to leave.
No other members
of the public attended
(R.
62).
Mr. Kenneth
G. Mensing, Manager of the Southern Region of the
Division of Land Pollution Control and Mr. Patrick McCarthy,
an
Agency inspector, testified concerning an inspection made October
23,
1978 pursuant to a call from the St. Clair County sheriff
(R.
15,
36; Ex.
3-7).
They observed an area fifty to sixty feet
square covered with barrels in the back corner of a very rural and
secluded bean field.
A vehicle had driven along the eastern edge
of the field to the corner and then swung out, manuevered and
backed into the corner where the barrels were dumped, damaging
crops in the process
(R.
18).
The barrels had been randomly and
haphazardly dumped.
Some were upright, while others were on their
sides or tilted.
Some of the barrels had leaked and spilled and
some continued to leak.
There were different colors
and thick—
35—49
—2—
nesses and a volatile odor which the witnesses associated with
the paint industry
(R.
19, 50; Comp.
Ex.
4).
Laboratory analysis
of the spilled materials from the ground was done by the Agency
laboratories
in Springfield
(R. 38; Ex.
7).
Some of the constit-
uents identified were flammable or mildly toxic solvents,
including
butyl acetate, ethyl hexanoic acid
(sic), ethyltoluene, toluene and
xylene.
The pigments were not analyzed, but are often toxic
(R.
35;
Ex.
7).
Mr. Jack Chase was called as an Agency witness, pursuant to
Procedural Rule 325
(R.
8).
Mr. Chase is
a self—employed chemical
waste hauler who has a warehouse on 15th Street in East St. Louis
(R.
9,
27).
He has several employees,
including his son, Michael
(R.
11).
He hauls one load every three months from Orchard Corp-
oration of America
(R.
10).
In October 1978 Abcoa hauled the
seventy-five, fifty-five gallon barrels containing ink solids from
Orchard and disposed of them on the farm.
Mr. Chase took full
responsibility for that act but would make no comment as to why it
was done
(R.
11,
12).
Respondent’s
son, Michael Chase,
is the Abcoa warehouse fore-
man
(R.
45,
48).
Approximately one month before the discovery of
the barrels he picked them up at Orchard Corporation and went from
there to the warehouse, and from there out to the farm where he
dumped the barrels
(R.
46).
One of the men who worked with him
told him that one of the man’s relatives owned the farm.
The man
was going to notify the owners that they were going to leave
barrels there for a month or two until there was room in the ware-
house.
Some of the barrels were leaking.
However,
Mr. Chase didn’t
dispose
of
the barrels because they were leaking but because he
needed
room
(R.
47).
The
farm
is
owned
by
a
Mr.
Kelling
who, because he was in
Louisiana,
did
not
attend
the
hearing
(R.
62).
The
farm
is
located
in
Stuckey
Township,
about
eight
to ten miles south and east of the
warehouse
(R.
51,
54; Ex.
9),
It is not a permitted waste disposal
site
(R.
44).
The testimony includes complete admissions by both Respondents.
The Board rejects the explanation offered by Michael Chase.
The
barrels
were
dumped
in a secluded area eight to ten miles from the
warehouse.
Respondents have produced no witnesses to testify that
there
was
an
agreement
to
use
the
farm
for
storage.
The
fact
that
crops
were
damaged
indicates
that
the
dumping
was
done
without
regard
for
the
owner’s
rights.
It seems
unlikely
that
Abcoa
in-
tended to return for the barrels considering the manner in which
they were stacked haphazardly.
It would have been easier to reload
them
if they were stacked neatly in a small
area.
The Board there-
fore finds that the barrels were transported to and disposed of at
an unpermitted site in violation of Section 21(f)
of the Act.
—3—
On November 21,
1978 Mr. Jack Chase, his son and another
employee removed the barrels with Agency supervision
(R.
28, 40,
43;
Ex.
5).
Part of the field wasn’t harvested or cultivated
near the barrels
(R.
41,
43; Ex.
8).
Mr.
Chase promised to remove
contaminated soil, but had not yet done so because of the weather
(R.
32, 56).
Mr.
Chase stated that he had made a partial payment
to the farmer
(R.
56).
In assessing a penalty, the Board will consider Section 33(c).
Without a doubt it is injurious to the public welfare to scatter
barrels
of toxic,
flammable ink around the countryside.
Since this
is a case of unpermitted dumping, no question is presented con-
cerning suitability of the site.
Although the Board can find no
social and economic value in unpermitted dumping,
it
is noted that
Respondents are in the recycling business.
The Board recognizes
the value of recycling.
However,
Respondents were not recycling
the barrels in question.
Mr. Chase complained that he was given adverse publicity in
the newspapers before the hearing.
After that,
no one in the St.
Louis
area wanted to do business with him.
He had lost several
accounts because of the incident and Abcoa Thinners was filing
bankruptcy
(R. 54-56).
The Agency has presented no evidence to
contradict the assertion that the company is bankrupt, but points
out in its closing argument that Abcoa Thinners is a sole propri-
etorship which cannot take bankruptcy separately from its owner
(R.
60)
This violation represents
a serious, deliberate violation of
the Act.
However, since Respondents have cooperated with the
Agency and taken steps
to repair the damage, the Board will assess
a penalty of $800.
The Board finds that this is necessary to
aid
enforcement
of
the
Act.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
It
is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Respondents Jack Chase d/b/a Abcoa Thinners and
Michael Chase are in violation of Section
21(f)
of the Act.
2.
Within thirty days
of the date of this Order, Re-
spondents
shall,
in cooperation with the Agency and
property owner,
strip the contaminated soil from the
field and haul it to a permitted landfill.
35—51
—4—
3.
Respondents
shall cease and desist from violations
of the Environmental Protection Act.
4.
Respondents shall, by certified check or money order
payable to the State of Illinois,
pay a joint and
several penalty of
$800 which is to be sent to:
State of Illinois
Fiscal Services Division
Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
Mr. Jacob D. Dumelle and Mr. Nels Werner dissented.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board,
hereby ce4tify that the
bove Opinion and Order
were adopted on the
~ day of
________,
1979 by a vote of
Christan
L. Moffet~
erk
-
Illinois Pollution
rol Board
—