ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August

5,

1971

HENRY HANNAH

v.

)

~

71—123

MINNESOTA PAINTS,

INC.

Henry Hannah,

pro se.

David DeDoncker of

E. Moline

for Minnesota Paints,

Inc.

Opinion and Order of the Board

(by Mr.

Currie):

This case was commenced by citizen complaint.

On the

eve of hearing we received

a proposed consent

order

agreed

to

by both parties.

In accord with

our

rules,

the agreement con-

tains

a

full statement

of

the relevant

facts,

obviating the

need for an expensive and time-consuming hearino or for

our

wading through

a lengthy transcript.

The agreement also details

a number of remedial measures already taken by

the comnany to

prevent any recurrence of

the accident,

as well

as

provisions

for

a corrective order and for

a small penalty.

On examining the stipulated facts we think the agreed order

entirely appropriate.

The settlement agreement, containing

both the stipulation of facts and

the consent order,

is hereby

adopted

as the findings of

fact,

conclusions of law,

and order

of the Board.

Proof of payment of the penalty shall he made

to the Board,

We commend the parties

for

this exemplary sett~ement,

Cases

such as this demonstrate the utility of the citizen—comolaint

provision of the statute,

SETTLEMENT

ACREEMENP

Complainant,

HENRY

HANNAH,

and

Respondent,

MINNESOTA

PAINTS,

INC.,

stipulate

and

agree

to

the

following

facts,

to

wit:

I.

That,

on or about May

7,

1971,

a

resin

storage tank

in the Respondent~splant located at 2590 Eighth Avenue, East

Moline,

Illinois, which was being filled

from a

tank truck,

overflowed

spilling resin onto

the plant floor and

into floor

drains.

The resin

then went into a catch hasin located on

the

plant property.

From the catch basin it went

into the storm

sewer

located

in 8th Avenue,

East Moline,

Illinois,

It traveled

about

2500

feet and emptied into

an open drainage ditch parallel

to

19th Street, East Moline,

Illinois.

The drainage ditch empties

into Honey

(or Sugar)

Creek about four blocks away.

A map

is

2

—~

221

---

herein attached as Exhibit “A” showing the route of the discharge.

2,

That the spillage was completely accidental and

occurred for the following reasons:

(a)

~~yj~ue.

The gauge showed the storage

tank to be almost empty so that it could easily accommodate the

entire truckload of resin.

However, the gauge was working

improperly and the storage tank was unable to accommodate the

load and the overflow resulted.

(b)

~eAbse~2e.

The employee who was

stationed at the storage tank to supervise its filling left his

post for his lunch hour, w1~ilethe pumps were still working,

Relying on the gauge,

the employee assumed that the tank could

be filled, without incidence, while he took his scheduled lunch

break,

As a result,

the employee was not present to shut the

pumps off when the spillage occurred,

(c)

Several open floor drains,

installed by the previous plant owners, allowed the resin

overflow to escape through the catch basin, which trapped some

of the spillage, into the storm sewer,

the drainage ditch and

eventually into the creek.

3.

That a number of minnows

(2”

-

4”)

in Honey

Creek were killed by the accidental discharge of the resin;

the number believed to be about 247 as counted by a Mr.

David

Goldsberry who resides

in the vicinity of the creek.

4,

That this

is the first such incident which has

occurred during the three

(3) year period in which the Respondent

has owned an~occupied the business premises at

the

above-

mentioned address,

5,

That, on July

12,

1971,

the drainage ditch and

Honey Creek were walked and visibly inspected from the point

of discharge at the drainage ditch to the end,

and no visible

residue was seen nor was any damage to aquatic life observed

or found,

6.

That water samples were taken on July 12,

1971,

at the following three

(3)

locations:

At the catch basin

located at Respondent~sproperty;

at the drainage ditch both

above and below the point where the sanitary sewer discharges,

These samples were analyzed by the East Moline Water Department

on July 14,

1971, which showed that no trace of resin remained

in the creek.

The results of the tests are attached herein as

Exhibit

“3”,

7.

That the Respondent has taken the following actions

to prevent the recurrence of the above-described incident:

2— 222

---

—3—

(a)

The faulty gauge has been repaired at a cost

of approximately $2500.00 and in the future all gauges will be~

inspected annually.

(b)

Employees whose duty it

is to supervise the

filling of resin storage tanks will be required to remain on duty

durinq~the pumping operation and will not be

allowed to leave

their posts at anytime during said operation.

Signs have been

posted to this effect,

(c)

The open floor, drains have been closed.

This

improvement will prevent any type

c~f

spillage from reaching the

storm drains.

(d)

Two dikes have been b~iltacross the doorways

confined to that room,

(e)

The catch basin has

been

cleaned and will

be

CONSENT ORDER

In consideration of the above, Complainant, HENRY HANNAH,

and Respondent, MINNESOTA PAINTS, INC.,

stipulate and agree to

the following conditions of settlement to be approved by the

Pollution Control Board, to—wit:

1,

That, on or about May

7,

1971,

Respondent accidentally

discharged toxic resins into the waters of Honey Creek in Pock

Island County,

Illinois, which

rrtay have resulted in a violation

of Section

12

(a)

of the Environmental Protection Act,

2,

That Respondent agrees

to pay $100.00 to the Illinois

Department of Conservation for the reasonable value of the

minnows killed by the accidental discharge,

Said payment will be

made within a reasonable

time after the approval of this consent

order by the Board,

3,

That Respondent by this Agreement is not foreclosed

from challenging the propriety of .any future order entered by

the Pollution Control Board, nor is this agreement to he con-

sidered a waiver of any and all defenses available to Respondent

in the event this aqreement is not approved by the Board,

4.

MINNESOTA PAINTS,

INC. covenants and agrees

to

refrain from any future pollutional discharges and to implement,

control and carryout the aforementioned procedures to insure the

prevention of any future accidental pollutional discharges,

We consent to the entry of the foregoing Settlement

Agreement and Consent Order.

2

—

223

---

COMPLAINANT, HENRY HANNAH

By:

______________________

RESPONDENT, MINNESOTA PAINTS, INC.

By: ______________________________

I, Regina E,

Ryan, Clerk of

the Pollution Control Board,

certif.y

that the Board adopted the above Opinion and Order this~

day of

August

,

1971,

2

—