ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April
17,
1980
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
v.
)
PC3
79—60
)
ILLINOIS TANK
& TRUCK WASH,
INC.,
Respondent.
MS. NANCY 3. BENNETT, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, appeared
on behalf
of the Agency.
MR. BRUCE
L.
ZUMSTEIN:
CODO, BONDS
AND
ZUMSTEIN appeared on
behalf of Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Dumelle):
The Complaint in this case,
filed on March
20,
1979,
alleges that Respondent violated Rules
951,
952(a),
953(a),
404(f) or 401(c)
in that Respondent’s ef~Eluentexceeded five
times the numerical standard in 404(f) of Chapter
3: Water
Pollution.
Also alleged were violations
of Sections 12(a),
12(b)
and 12(d)
of the Act caused by Respondentts discharge
of wastewater.
A hearing was held on October
9,
1979
in
~3oliet, Illinois.
At the hearing, the parties had agreed
to submit a
Written Stipulation of Facts by November 26,
1979.
On
February
7,
1980 an Interim Order was issued by the Board
requesting receipt of this Stipulation within 30 days.
The
Board has not received this document and now decides the
case on the record before it.
The stipulated
facts as agreed to by the parties at the
hearing stated that Respondent
is
in the business of
cleaning truck tanks in Will County,
Illinois.
The cleaning
process utilized approximately 100 gallons of
water per
truck at the time this Complaint was filed.
Steam is now used
for
truck cleaning.
Respondent’s wastewater
treatment
system was built
in mid-1977, without Agency permits.
A
permit application was subsequently applied for and granted
by the Agency on March
16,
1978.
This
system,
as permitted
was
to contain
two
concrete settling tanks
in series
followed by a holding pond designed to hold tank truck wash
water with no discharge
(R.
7).
A Complaint was filed by
—2—
modifications being made to the treatment system,
again
without Agency permits
(R.
6).
Respondent’s failure
to
obtain construction and operating permits violates Rules
951,
952(a) and 953(a)
and Section 12(b)
of the Act.
The parties stipulated that spillages have occurred at
the site during times wastes are pumped from the holding
pond or settling tanks into tank trucks to
be
hauled to
sanitary
landfills;
also spillages have occurred due to
rainfall
(R.
10,
22—23).
A farm is
located within 25 feet of the holding lagoon
and downgradient
of the lagoon.
Approximately
200 yards
south of the truck wash operations
is located a trailer park
which has drinking wells.
The ground
in these areas is
generally silty
barns with gravelly subsoils
(R.
11).
Respondent’s
Permit No.
1978—EA-409
to conduct its
wastewater collection operation requires that there be no
discharge from Respondent’s facilities.
The facts support a
finding that Respondent’s spillages constitute
a violation
of Section
12(b)
of the Act.
The discharge is a potential
threat to groundwater in the surrounding vicinity in
violation of Sections 12(a) and 12(d)
of the Act.
Samples were taken from a swampy area near the holding
lagoon on Respondent’s property.
A witness
for the Agency
testified that a liquid was coming off the low area adjacent
to Respondent’s holding pond,
which appeared the same as the
material in the pond
(R.
37).
Apparently the liquid had
seeped through the berm of the pond rather than by
spilling
over the top
(R.
40).
Samples from the pond and low area
revealed the composition of the water from the two areas to
be
similar in contents,
smell and appearance
(Respondent’s
Exhibit’s
4 and
5).
The samples do not conclusively
indicate that the water caused pollution of the wells or
other waters
in the area
(R.
23,
31).
However,
the
concentrations
of BOD5 and suspended solids in the discharge
greatly exceed the limitations specifically provided in Rule
404(f).
Although Respondent stated that its violations were
unintentional and that steps are being taken to alleviate
the flow
from the holding
pond,
it must he
noted that intent
is not an exclusive element considered by the Board in
determining whether
or not a violation has occurred.
—3—
Through the stipulated
facts and evidence presented at
the hearing Respondent’s have been shown to violate Rule
404(f) of Chapter
3: Water Pollution and Section 12(a),
12(h)
and 12(d)
of the Act through its discharges and Water
Rules ~5i,
952(a) and 953(a) through
its modification and
operation of
a wastewater treatment system without having
obtained necessary Agency permits.
After review of the factors in Section 33(c)
of the Act
the Board
finds that a cease and desist order is appropriate
to prevent any interference with the protection of the
health,
general welfare and physical property
of those
adjacent to Respondent’s operation as a result of its dis-
charges.
Respondent’s proposed modifications of its system
are reasonable and appropriate for the amount and kind of
waste water
involved.
A $500 penalty payable within 35 days
of the date of this Order
is imposed to aid in the
enforcement of the Act.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law
in this matter.
ORDER
1)
Respondent has violated Rules 951,
952(a),
953(a) and
404(f)
of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution and Sections
12(a),
12(b) and 12(d)
of the Environmental Protection Act.
2)
Respondent shall cease any desist from any further
violations of Rules
951,
952(a),
953(a) and 404(f)
of Chapter
3: Water Pollution and Sections 12(a),
12(b)
and 12(d)
of the Act.
3)
Within 35 days of the date of this Order, Respondent
shall forward
the
sum
of $500 by certified check or
money order, payable to the State
of Illinois to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Section
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
—4—
I, Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and
Order were certified on the
fi1~
day of
___________________
1980 by a vote of
-o
Christan L. Moff~4 Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
