ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
Septezñber
3, 1981
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 80—4
ALBA MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
)
an Illinois corporation,
Respondent.
PHILIP
L.
WILLMAN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF THE COMPLAINANT.
PUCKETT, BARNETT, LARSON, MICKEY, WILSON
& OCHSENSCHLAGER, ATTORNEYS
AT LAW (TRIS 3.
MICHELS, OF COUNSEL), APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by N.E.Werner):
This matter comes before the Board on the January
4,
1980
Complaint brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”).
Count
I of the Complaint alleged that,
from August
3,
1977
u.rit.i.i
January
4,
1980
(including, but not limited to,
August
3,
1977,
April
26,
1978, and June 8,
1978), the Alba Manufacturing Company
(“Alba” or the “Company”)
allowed the discharge of an effluenL
into
Illinois waters from its manufacturing facility (the “facility” or
“plant”) which contained visible oil and grease in violation of
Rule 403 of Chapter 3:
Water Pollution Control Regulations
(“Chapter 3”) and Section 12(a) of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act (“Act”).
Count II alleged that, from April
26,
1978 until January
4,
1980
(including, but not limited to,
April 26,
1978,
August 24,
1978,
December
5,
1978, and June 5,
1979), the Company allowed the
discharge of an effluent into Illinois waters which contained Eive—day
biochemical oxygen demand (“BOD
“)
in excess of five times the
numerical standard prescribed i~Rule 404(a) of Chapter
3, thereby
violating Rules 401(c) and 404(a) of Chapter 3 and Section 12(a)
of the Act.
Count III alleged that, from June 8,
1978 until January
4,
1980
(including, hut not limited to, June
8,
1978 and August
24,
1978),
43—257
—2—
Alba allowed the discharge of an effluent into a State water which
contained iron in excess of five times the numerical standard
set
forth in Rule 408(a) of Chapter 3, thereby violating Rules 401(c)
and 408(a) of Chapter
3 and Section 12(a) of the Act.
Count III also alleged that,
from April
26, 1978 until January
4,
1980 (including, but not limited to, April
26, 1978,
June
8,
1978,
and June 5,
1979), the Respondent allowed the discharge of an effflue~iI
into Illinois waters with pH levels lower than the level allowed by
Rule 408(a) of Chapter 3, thereby violating Rules 401(c)
and~,.408(a) of
Chapter
3 and Section 12(a) of the Act.
Count IV alleged that,
from October 24,
1977 until January 4,
lT~8O,
the Company discharged contaminants into a water of the State of Illinois
without possessing an NPDES Permit from the Agency for point source
discharges
in violation of Rule 901 of Chapter
3 and Sections
12(a)
and
12(f) of the Act.
Count V alleged that the Company, by constructing “river bank
coffer dam ponds to contain oil runoff and recycled water from the
process area”, increased the likelihood of a discharge of containant:s
into the Fox River and,
from August 3,
1977 until January
4,
1980
(including, but not limited to, August
3,
1977,
April
26, 1978,
June 8,
1978,
August 24,
1978,
December
5,
1978, and June
5,
1979),
“deposited contaminants upon the land in such place and manner so
as to create a water pollution hazard” in violation of Section 12(d)
of the Act.
A hearing was held on June 30,
1981 at which an unsigned cojy
of the Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement was read into the record.
On July 10,
1981, the parties filed an executed Stipulation
and Proposal for Settlement which was substantially identical
to the
unsigned copy which was previously submitted.
The Company owns and operates a plant which is located on
4.2 acres of land on the west bank of the Fox River at 100 West
Indian Trail in the City of Aurora in Kane County,
Illinois.
This
facility manufactures and processes glycerin, vegetable acid oil,
and other related products.
(Stip.
2).
The Respondent stores vegetable oil and waste material
in various
tanks which are located on its property.
Three of the storage tanks
have a storage capacity of 14,500 gallons each, while the fourth tank
is over twice as big and has a storage capacity of 29,044 gallons.
(Stip.
2).
In prior years, the Company also used “an open circulation tank
and two holding tanks”
in addition to the four storage tanks.
The
circulation and holding tanks were located just west of the Fox Riv’~r
and were utilized in the recycling of wastewater from the manufacti~inq
process.
(Stip.
2).
43—258
—3
Howevor,
the Company no longer uses the open circulation t~mk
and the two holding tanks.
Instead,
the Respondent “now pumps
wastewater into the sanitary sewer system owned and operated by t~ie
Aurora Sanitary District”.
(Stip.
2).
Deposits
of
“oil
and
grease
materials”
are
sometimes
found
o~i
the
ground
at
the
Company’s
facility
“due
in
part
to
accidents
occurring
during
normal
operations”.
(Stip.
2).
Surface
~iater
which
flows
across
the
property
can
then
pick
up
the
oily,
greasy
~iaterialsand create various environmental problems.
(Stip.
3).
For example, two separate accidents involving spills occurm:er~
on April
15,
1977 and August ii,
1978.
About 30,000 gallons oF a
red, oily substance was deposited on the ground when two storage
tanks ruptured and spilled on April
15, 1977.
(Stip.
2).
Similarly,
a smaller spill occurred on August 11,
1978 when “approximately
2,000 gallons of vegetable oil
leaked
from a railroad
tank car
int:.~’~
a
storm
drain”.
(Stip.
2).
At the time of these spills,
the Company constructed two ~arthe~
ditches to contain the oil spills and then pumped the oily sub;~-~rices
into a tank truck for subsequent disposal.
(Stip.
2—3).
Agency inspections of the Respondent’s facilities, which
revealed surface water run—off that resulted in the discharge of
contaminants into the Fox River,
were conducted on August
3,
1977,
April
26,
1978, June 8,
1978,
August 24,
1978,
December
5,
1978,
and
June
5,
1979.
(Stip.
3—5).
The inspection which took place on August
3,
1977
(in which
both Kane County Environmental Division employees and Agency personn~i
participated) showed that water had overflowed from the Company’s
circulation tank, had flowed approximately
60 feet along the river
hank,
and
had
then
“entered
the
Fox
River
at
a
rate
of
about
15—20 gallons per minute...”
(See:
Stip.
3;
Exhibit
A).
Water
samples
of
the
discharged
overflow
into
the
Fox
River
indicated
that
“an
oily,
greasy
substance”
was
present.
(Stip.
3).
At
the
inspection
of
Alba’s
facilities
on
April
26,
1978,
employees of the Kane County Environmental Division and the Agency
observed that “water flowing from a grease coated pond into the
circulation tank...was then overflowing from the circulation tank
into three small cofferdam ponds that had been constructed on the
bank of the Fox River”.
(Stip.
3).
The inspectors also noted that
polluted water from the three small ponds flowed through a trench
into the Fox River.
(Stip.
3).
Subsequent laboratory analyses of
water samples from the Fox River discharges “showed a bio—chemical
oxygen demand
(BOD) concentration of greater than 420 milligrams
per liter
(mg/i)”.
(See:
Stip.
3; Exhibit B).
On June
8,
1978,
inspectors from the Kane County Environmental
Division and the Agency “observed that the surface area south oF the
43—259
—4
circulation tank had been filled in with sod”.
(Stip.
4).
Never-
theless, “they also noticed that a length of corrugated plastic
piping had been buried between the tank and the coffer dam ponds”
and that the pipe “was discharging at approximately 8—10
GPT.i into
the ponds, which in turn were overflowing into the Fox River”.
(Stip.
4).
The laboratory analysis of a water sample from the Fox
River discharges “showed that the water contained a BOD concentration
of greater than 100 mg/i, an iron concentration of 58 mg/i,
and
~t
pH
value of 2.5”.
(Stip.
4),
A subsequent Agency inspection on August
24,
1978 indicated that
conditions at the Respondent’s plant were about “the same as they
were on June
8,
1978,
except that the grease coated pond west of ~he
circulation tank had been dammed off from the tank”.
(Stip.
4).
Turbid water, which had oil spots on the surface, was being discha-jed
into the Fox River at a rate of about 3-5 gallons per minute.
(Stip.
4).
Laboratory tests of this water “showed a BOD concentration
of greater than 480 mg/i and an iron concentration of
13 mg/i”.
(Sti2.
1)
Another inspection by Agency employees took place on Decemb~r5,
1978.
They observed that turbid water “continued to flow from the
circulation tank into the coffer dam ponds and then into the Fox
River”.
(Stip.
4).
Laboratory tests of water samples “showed a
801)
concentration of 1200 mg/i”,
(Stip.
4—5).
Approximately seven months
later, on June
5,
1979,
an Agency
inspection revealed “that water continued to flow from the coffer dam
ponds into the Fox River”.
(Stip.
5).
Laboratory tests indicated
that this water had “a BOD concentration of 350 mg/i and a
pi~1vaimi~
of
2.9”.
(Stip.
5).
The parties have stipulated that the Company has
taken substan~:ial
measures to prevent future spills and eliminate any further surface
water run—off problems.
The Respondent has re—graded the driveway
and parking lot area to the west of the circulation tank
in order to
divert the flow of surface water away from this tank.
(Stip.
5).
In addition to various sodding and grading activities, the Respondent
has planted grass, trees, and bushes in this area.
(R.
11-12).
To prevent water from draining underground into the circulation
tank,
two nearby manholes have been plugged with cement.
(Stip.
5).
Moreover, both the circulation tank and the coffer dam ponds have
been entirely filled in with clay which should “eliminate the flow
of surface and ground water into the tank and the ponds”.
(Stip.
5).
The proposed settlement agreement provides that the Company
shall follow a specified compliance program to prevent oil spills
(including daily inspections of all tank drainage fittings and valv
replacement of faulty valves, daily tank inspections
for leaks, and
weekly steam pressure tests of the main transfer lines), conduct
inspections twice a week of its property on the west bank of the
Fox River to ensure that no discharges of contaminated water will
occur,
and pay a stipulated penalty of $2,500.00
.
(Stip.
5-6).
43—260
—5—
In evaluating this enforcement action and proposed settlement
agreement,
the Board has taken into consideration all the facts and
circumstances in light of the specific criteria delineated in
Section 33(c) of the Act,
The Board finds the settlement agreement
acceptable under Procedural Rule 331 and Section 33(c) of the Act.
The Board finds that the Respondent, the Aiba Manufacturing
Company, has violated Rules
401(c),
403,
404(a),
408(a), and 901 of
Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Control Regulations and Sections 12(a),
12(d), and 12(f)
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
The
stipulated penalty of $2,500.00 will be assessed against the Respondent.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board that:
1.
The Respondent, the Alba Manufacturing Company,
has violated
Rules 401(c),
403,
404(a),
408(a), and 901 of Chapter 3:
Water
Pollution Control Regulations and Sections 12(a),
12(d), and 12(f) of
the Illinois Environmental Protection Act,
2.
Within 45 days of the date of this Order, the Respondent
shall, by certified check or money order payable to the State of
Illinois, pay the stipulated penalty of $2,500.00 which is to be
sent to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
3.
The Respondent shall comply with all the terms and
conditions of the Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement filed on
July 10,
1981, which is incorporated by reference as if fully set
forth herein.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
her~)DYcertify that the above Opinion and Order were adopted
on thea
____day ~
,
1981 by a vote of -VU.
Christan L. Moff’ep~:fClerk
Illinois Pollutiok (control Board
I, ~l—
7 fS
1