ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

Au~ist

22,

1984

ILLI~I~ENVIP0NMENP~L

PROTECTION

AGENCY

)

)

Complainant,

V.

PCB 83—227

RUSSELi~M~

BLISS and

JERRY

RUSSELL

~3LISS,

INC.

,

a

Missouri corporation,

Respondents.

MR. VINCENT W~MORETH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON

BEHALF

OF THE COMPLAINANT,.

MR

THOMAS

J

IMMEL, ATTORNEY AT LAW, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE

RESPONDENTS

OPINION

AND

ORDER

OF

THE

BOARD

(by

W0

J~ Nega):

This matter comes before the Board

on

the December

9,

1983

Complaint, brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency

(Agency)

Count

I

of

the

Complaint

alleged

that

the

Respondents caused

or

threatenea

the

discharge

of contaminants

into

the environment

so

as to cause and/or tend to cause water

pollution and deposited

contaminants upon the land in such place and manner as to create

a

water

pollution hazard in violation of

Section

12(a) and

~3ection

12(d)

of

the

lUinois

Environmental

Protection

Act

(Act)

and

installed

and operated facilities and equipment capable of

causing

or

contributing to water pollution without having a

permit

granted

by the Agency in violation of Section 12(b)

of

the

Count

Ii

alleged

that

the Respondents have caused or

allowed

the

open

dumping

of

wastes

in violation of Section 21(a)

of

the

Act;

have

conducted

a

waste

storage

and

disposal

operation

with

the

necessary’

Agency

permit

in

violation

of

Section

21(d)

of

the

Act;

and

have

stored

and

disposed

of hazardous

waste

at a site

or

facility

which failed to meet the requirements of the Act and

regulations

thereunder

in

violation

of

Section

21(e)

of the

Acts

Count

III alleged that

the

Respondents owned or operated

an

existing

hazardous

waste

management

facility

without

having

obtained interim status pursuant to 35 IlL Adm~Code 7OO~1O5

in

violation

of Section 21(f)

59~4O3

---

A

ua~:inq

was held

on

June

5.

1984

in Belleville,

Illinois

uu~

t~iu

pa~:ties

i’iled

a

Stipulation

and

Proposal

for Settlement

C

fl

3w’

,~

25,

i9~4

~Yu

oar-Lies

a\~u

stip~I~ ~ei

that

Respondent

Russell

N.

Bliss

(R,

N.

Bliss~

is

a

Missouri

r~sident

who

was the owner and operator

uf

Bliss

paste

Oil

Service,

an

unincorporated Missouri business,

prior

to

November 15,

1979.

The

B’~i’ss

Wsste

Oil

Service

was

~nga~cl

tu’

rhe

husicess

-n~ n’

L-•’~t~.n

~ u~c selling

used oils,

(Stip

2,

On

~4ovemb~~r

1,

~

iL~nt

R~ N,

Bliss

formed

a

Missou

‘1

nerporation

(j~c,

~p-~r\,

2~i.3i~ij

BliSS,

Inc.)

which

was

for

t

rposus

of

this

p~.ceelinJ

a

successor

business

ent4ty

to

R1iss

Waste

011.

Service

(StIp~

2’~3).

Respondent

R.

M.

B tiss

solely

opuratuB

Jerry

hu:

null

Bliss,

Inc

(Bl~ss,

lr~~

us

°t~

r~i

nrit~i

JanuCry

1,

22

pncdent

R.

M.

Bliss

has

indicated that,

after January

1,

1982,

all his ownership and

lot r~s

Bliss,

I~

~

sc~

C

2

~

puration of Bliss,

Inc.

was

Likc~

uiur by

Resoonornr

~

~

Biiss

(J,

R,

Bliss),

J.

(1.

3~nus

is

tne

s-no

of Respundaun

2.

‘4.

Bliss.

Respondent

R~

M

-

ss ors sLr

tr,;,t

no

cur’u;.~tjv ~ retired.

(Stip.

3).

Howev”r

thu

Agency

has.

nored

that

it

-

nuitner

concurs

nor

denies

the

cicerotioned

rnprosentati~ns

t-$t

subsequent

to

Januw’v

1

1983 Russell

N.

Bliss

sold

all

his

ownership

interest

21

sn,

toe,

or,

that.

the

operation

of

bljss,

Inc.

was taken

over

y

h~s Con

sad

Russnl.

N.

Bliss

is

now

retired.~

(Stip,

3).

Ce~pendents

R.

N

2

‘~

s

and

Bliss,

Inc.

conducted

waste

oil

storsue,

transportation,

c~d resale

operations

in

Missouri

and

Illinois

at

all

times

relevant

to

these

proc

-e.lings.

Although

the

Respondents

held

a

Special

Waste

Nnu~er

permit

issued

by

the

Agency,

Respondent

Bliss,

Inc.

was

not

reqistsred

with

the

Office

of

the

Secretary

of

State

ot

Ill

inois

~s

a

fnre~gn corporation

authorized

to

do

business

in

Illtrn~:s

(Stip.

3),

Thus, Bliss,

Inc.

was

not

;fficially

authorized

to

do

business

in

Illinois.

At

all

times

pertinent

to

thE’

Complaint,

Clayton

Chemical

Compan

,

a

Missouri

corporation

wrireb

was

authorized

to

do

business

nnd

doin~

business

10

~llinois~

owner

a

4.13

acre

parcel

of

land

ii.

Lot

304

Cahokia

Commons,

TOW~Ship I

North,

Range

10

West,

3rd

PM

.~nthe

City

of

Sauget

in

St.

Clair

County,

Illinois

(the

~~siteu),

At

all

times

relevent

te

the

Complaint,

and

ending

“anuary

1,

1983,

Respondent

R.

N. Bliss and

later Respondent

Bliss,

Inc.

successively

have

owned

and

operated

four

above—ground

storage

tanks

which

were

used

exclusively

by

the

Respondents

and

which

were

located

in

the

northwest corner of

the

site

owned

by

Clayton

Chemical

Company.

(Stip.

3~4).

It

is

stipulated

that,

at

all

times

pertinent

to these proceedings,

Respondent

B.

N..

Bliss

has

personally

been

the

owner

of these

above-ground

tanks.

(Stip.

4).

These

four

storage

tanks are

utilized

pursuant

to

a

Development

and

Operating

Permit

issued

by

tne

Agency

(Permit

1979—19-DE/OP)

to

Clayton

Chemical

Company, as

59~404

---

—3—

owner of the site,

for the storage and processing of liquid

special waste.

(Stip.

4).

In addition to the four above-ground storage tanks,

a fifth

tank was installed by B.

N.

Bliss below the ground

adjacent to

the four tanks during the fall of

1974.

Respondent

B.

N. Bliss

has indicated that he

is uncertain of the exact date that this

underground tank was installed, but believes that it was sometime

during the autumn of 1974.

(Stip.

4).

The parties have stated

that no Agency permit was issued for this fifth tank.

This underground tank, which had been removed from a gas

station, had three holes in its side.

Each hole was about

3

1/2

inches

in width and ranged from approximately 1 1/2 inches to 3

inches in height.

The lower portion of each hole was rectangular,

with the steel walls of the tank appearing bent inwardly like

flaps,

so that

each

of the holes appeared to be regularly shaped.

These three holes were separated from each other by about

5

1/2

feet and,

as

measured

from the bottom of the underground tank,

ranged

in height from

4 feet

10 inches to

3 feet

2 inches.

Although Respondent B.

M. Bliss has denied that he knew of the

existence of

these

three holes, he has admitted that he knew that

the

tank might leak.

(Stip. 4~5).

After Respondent

B.

N.

Bliss

installed this underground

tank, it was utilized

to

contain draw”~offwater from the four

above-ground

storage

tanks until

sometime

in early to mid-1978.

Prior to mid~1978,recoverable oil floating on the water in the

tank

was

pumped

out

of

the

tank

for

re—use

on

various

occasions.

(Stip.

5).

It is stipulated that Respondent

B.

N.

Bliss individually

deposited, and, in his capacity as President of Bliss,

Inc.,

knowingly allowed contaminated draw~offwater to remain in the

underground tank.

(Stip.

5).

Agency tests have demonstrated

that this draw-off water was contaminated with 5,600 parts per

million

(ppm) of polychiorinated biphenyls (PCB~s);22,000 ppm

trichioroethylene

(TCE);

1,900

ppm tetrachiorethylene;

8,800 ppm

toluene;

8,000 ppm xylenes;

3,300 ppm C

substituted benzenes;

5,100 ppm CA substituted benzenes; 110 ~pm C

substituted benzenes;

1,200 ppm n~pthalene;1,500 ppm methylnaphth~lene;2,500 ppm

dimethylnaphthalene;

1,700 ppm trimethylnapthalene; 680 ppm

phenanthrene;

8,200

aliphatic

hydrocarbons,

and

2,200

ppm

phthalates.

(Stip,

5; Comp.

3).

Respondent R,

N. Bliss believes that the previously

mentioned contaminants apparently reached the underground tank

via the drain water from the four above—ground tanks.

(Stip.

5).

The Agency has noted that, because of the existence of the three

holes

in the underground tank,

it is likely that some of its

contents (including the aforementioned contaminants) could be

59~405

---

alI..~cd ~o discharge into the coil,

Accordirg to data supplied

to the troncy by Clayton Chemical Company in its permit

appU.cn2ion for the site, the soil

near the tanks

is highly

perrenhie

End

the

ground

water

table

in

-the

vicinity

of

the

undo yrurad tank is very high.

(Sip

6).

Jr

June

6,

1983,

the

underground

~an~

vas

removed

by

Resprdeft

B.

N.

Bliss at the Agency

s request

Agency personnel

oLao~”veC’t at an unknown amount ot ~-leurce rround tank~scontents

had ~.kc

Srom the tank

(including

~o

ti

ated substances

Agene~ Inroratory analysis of thc

cc ii

si.rr

nding the under—

groi.

I tats irdicated contaminatior

cr~

he presence

o,E the

folicw ny substarces:

3,600 p~mPC

~5

‘10 p~’TCE;

800 pprr

tetr

~iloroethylene; 5,700 ppm toloe~e, 3 2)0 ppm xylenes,

6 700

ppm

(~

s bstituted benzenes;

8,900

ppTI C4 substituted benzenes;

1,luO3tpm C

substituted benzenes;

1,000 ppm

naphthalene;

1,300

ppm mcthy1n~phthalene;800 ppm dimethylraphthalene,

and 500 ppm

trimerth~lnaphthalene.(Stip.

6’ Comp.

3)

Been ice of the nature of these chemical contaminants, the

potential environmental consequences can be very serious.

Polychiorinated biphenyls, which are carcinogenic and acutely and

chronically toxic through oral and dermal

exposure, can have

toxic effects including chloracne and liver atrophy with preceding

nausea

vomiting, weight loss,

jaundice, edema,

and abdominal

pain.

Even low levels of PCB~sin the environment can ultimately

result in toxic effects, because PCB~sare extremely persistent

and b o—accumulate in human and animal organisms with

biom~crif’icatior,of concentrations in the rood chain,

(Comp.

4).

Moreover

nder 35 Ill

Adm. Code 721 133(e),

the foliowing

con~a r

axe lIsted as hazardous subtha c~sand hazardous

waste..

tiichloroethylene

(a toxic pollutan~),

tetradloroethylene

(a known carcinogen),

t luene

(toxic by

ingethlor

inhalation and skin absorpti n)’

wylene, benzene

(a

anown carcinogen), and naphthalene.

Ibe Agency has emphasized that the Respondents~installation

and use of the underground tank were at no time authorized by a

permi

from the Illin-is Environmental Protection Agency or the

~nited atates Envi~onmen-ialProtection Agency ‘USEPA),

or author.Lzed

rc,

ii ~.erimstatus pursuant to the Federal or state Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations

(see:

35 Ill, Adm.

(sde 700.105).

(Stip.

6).

~osp-~ndentR.

N. E.iss individcali.y

-‘id not disclose the

existence of the undergConnd tank to the Agency and initially

refused to remove it,

however, after receipt of the Agencys

enforceuent notification letter dated April

26,

1983, Respondent

k.

M.

Bliss

“subsequently

removed

said

tank,

promptly

containerized

it

contents, disposeC

.f all residues and contaminated soils

at

ap~roveJ~rcilities, snd cleaned up the site to the Agency~s

sati~3fa~t2on’,

(Stip.

6”7).

---

The proposed settlement agreement provides that the Respondents

admit the violations alleged in the Complaint and agree to:

(1)

cease and desist from further violations;

(2)

remedy all

known environmental damage at the site,

and

(3) pay a stipulated

penalty of $4,000.00 in four equal annual

installments of $1,000.00.

(Stip.

9—11).

It is stipulated that, at the request of the Agency, Respondent

B.

N. Bliss has already performed

all the following actions:

(1)

PCB—contaminated materials have been, under Agency supervision,

removed from the excavation area,

containerized, and disposed of

at

a federally-approved facility;

(2) at least one hundred cubic

yards

in volume of additional contaminated materials have been,

under Agency supervision, properly disposed of at a hazardous

waste facility approved by the Agency;

(3) the entire transportation,

disposal, or

storage of these

contaminated materials has been

performed pursuant to the requisite state and Federal authority

(e.g., permits were obtained where necessary),

and

(4)

suitable

clean fill materials have been used to fill the hole remaining at

the

site and “the

Agency has

approved the entire completed clean~up.”

(Stip.

9—10).

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 and finds the

settlement agreement

acceptable under 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 103.180.

The Board finds that Respondent R.

N.

Bliss has violated

Sections 12(a),

12(b),

12(d),

21(a),

21(d),

and 21(e)

of the Act

and finds that Respondent Bliss,

Inc. has violated Sections

12(a),

12(b),

12(d),

21(e), and 21(f)

of the Act.

The Respondents

will

be

ordered

to

cease

and

desist from further violations,

remedy all known environmental damage at the site

(which has

apparently already been accomplished), and to pay the stipulated

penalty of $4,000.00 in four equal annual installments.

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

1.

Respondent Russell

N.

Bliss

has violated Sections

12(a),

12(b),

12(d),

21(a),

21(d), and 21(e) of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Act,

2.

Respondent Jerry Russell Bliss,

Inc. has violated

Sections 12(a),

12(b),

12(d),

21(e),

and 21(f)

of

the

Illinois Environmental Protection Act.

59.407

---

3.

The Respondents shall cease and desist from further

violations.

4.

Within 10 days of the date of this Order, the

Respondents shall, by certified check or money order

payable to the State of Illinois,

pay

the first

installment of $1,000.00 (on the total stipulated

penalty of $4,000.00) which is to be sent to:

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

Fiscal

Services

Division

2200

Churchill

Road

Springfield, Illinois

62706

The remaining three, installments of $1,000.00 each

(on

the total stipulated penalty of $4,000.00) shall be

payable on the first, second and third anniversary

respectively of this Order.

Payments on these install-

ments

are

to

be

paid

in the same manner and fashion as

the

first

installment.

5

•

The

Respondents

shal 1

comply

with

al 1

the

terms

and

conditions

of

the

Stipulation

and

Proposal

for

Settlement filed on June 25,

1984, which is

incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board

hereby

cer~tifythat the above Opinion and

Order

was

adopted

onthe n~

day

of

4

,~,,..t,

1984 by avoteof

_____

g2~!tneaT?;r

r’

Illinois Pollution Control