ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November 14,
1974
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
vs.
)
PCB 72-412
CHARLES J.
TRIUNE
& BETHEL
TERRACE,
INC.,
)
Respondents.
John W.
Leserka, Assistant Attorney General,
on behalf of the
Environmental Protection Agency;
John
B.
Raffaelle, Attorney, on behalf of Respondents.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr.
Seaman):
The Environmental
Protection Agency (hereinafter referred to as
‘Agency’) filed its original
Complaint against Charles
J. Trione and
Bethel Terrace,
Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Respondents”) on
October 18,
1972.
On January
2,
1973,
the Agency filed
an Amended
Complaint and it is on this Complaint that six public hearings were
held.
The Amended Complaint consists
of three Counts.
We shall
treat
each Count separately.
The Respondents own and operate (1)
a dumping area,
(2)
a sewage
treatment plant in conjunction with
a polishing lagoon and (3)
a
mobil
home trailer park,
all
of which are located on
a single site
in Caseyville, St. Clair County,
Illinois.
Respondent Charles
J.
Trione is the sole owner of Respondent Bethel Terrace,
Inc..
(5/3/73
R.
173).
Count
I charges Respondents with numerous specific dates
of violation
of Sections 21(a),
21(b), 21(e),
and 21(f)
of the Environmental Protection
Act; and Rules
3.04,
5.06,
5.07(a) and 5.07(b)
of the Rules For Refuse
Sites
and Facilities, remaining
in effect pursuant to Section 49(c)
of
the Act.
Mr.
Kenneth Mensing, Sanitary Inspector for the Division of Land
Pollution Control of the Agency, testified (5/3/73
R.
93-134)
to the
conditions
he found at Respondent’s landfill
or dump during each of
the dates
of violation alleged
in
the Amended Complaint as well
as to
the fact that the Respondents never obtained a permit for the operation
of
a landfill.
—
389
-2-
Mr. Mensing conducted his initial
inspection of Respondents’
property on November
22,
1971 and observed thereon large ravines
into which numerous automobile bodies,
brush,
tree limbs and
a
large number of tires had been dumped.
(5/3/73
R.
95, 96).
On
that same date,
Mr. Mensing informed Trione of the violative
condition of said ravines and of
a separate area upon the premises
where refuse collected from Respondents’ trailer park was sometimes
dumped.
(5/3/73
R.
97).
Mr.
Mensing testified that he told Trione
that these areas should
be covered daily and that if Trione wished
to continue dumping
he should apply for
a permit.
(5/3/73
R.
97).
Mr.
Mensing testified that open dumping of refuse, open dumping of
garbage,
failure to apply daily cover and failure
to properly spread
continued substantially unabated for more than
a year.
(5/3/73
R.
133).
Complainant’s Exhibits
2 through
17, being photographs of
Respondents’ dumping areas taken on separate dates, show hundreds of
automobile tires, numerous wrecked automobiles, other debris and
garbage.
Respondent Trione admitted by his testimony that he did
not obtain
a permit to operate (5/3/73
R.
181); that he dumped upon
his property refuse collected from the residents of the trailer park
until February of 1972 (5/3/73
R.
177);
and that he allowed the dumping
of tires upon his property during the period between early 1969 to
approximately the end of
1972.
(5/3/73
R.
181).
Complainant’s
witness James
E.
Kammueller observed the dumping of tires on Respondent’s
property on October 26,
1972.
(5/17/73
R.
5).
Complainant’s Exhibit
26
is
a photograph showing the dumping of tires
on that date.
This Board finds that the evidence adduced
by the Agency
in the
form of testimony and exhibits
is sufficient. to sustain the allegations
of Count
I.
In mitigation, Respondent Trione testified that he never
believed a permit was required, this in the face of numerous notices by
the Agency (See Complainant’s Exhibits 18 through
25).
Trione further
testified that he had been operating in the same manner long before
the Environmental
Protection Agency was formed,
We find little merit
in these assertions.
The allegations
of Count
II
of the Amended Complaint relate to
the sewage
treatment plant owned and operated by Respondents.
Said
facility
is
located proximate to an unnamed tributary of Canteen Creek..
which
is
in turn tributary to the Cahokia Canal.
Count
II charges
continuing violation of the Act; certain Rules and Regulations of the
Illinois Sanitary Water Board
(effective pursuant to Section 49(c) of
the Act); and certain Rules
in Chapter
3 of Illinois Pollution Control
Board
Rules and Regulations.
We shall
consider the allegations of
Count
II separately.
14—390
—3-
a)
Caused,
threatened, and allowed the discharge of contaminants,
as defined by the Act,
including but not limited to inadequately
treated sewage on various dates,
including but not limited
to 5/16/72,
5/22/72, 5/24/72, 7/20/72,
7/21/72,
7/28/72,
8/1/72, 8/22/72 and
10/26/72 so as
to cause or tend
to
cause water pollution
in Illinois
of an unnamed tributary of Canteen Creek either alone or
in combination
with matter from other sources, or so as
to violate regulations adopted
by the Pollution Control Board under the Act,
all
in violation of
§12(a) of the Act;
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1971
Ch.
ill 1/2, §1012(a).
We find that Complainant has proven this general allegation.
The
particulars of Respondents’ violations
are set out below,
as the
allegations of Count
II
become more specific.
b)
Caused or allowed unnatural sludge or bottom deposits, floating
debris, visible oil,
odor, unnatural
plant or algal
growth, unnatural
color or turbidity,
or matter in concentrations or combinations toxic
or harmful
to human, animal, plant or aquatic life of other than natural
origin
to be present
in
the unnamed tributary of Canteen Creek
in
violation of
Rules 203(a)
and 402 of Chapter 3.
The evidence that Respondents’
sewage treatment operation has
caused or contributed
to the pollution of the unnamed tributary of
Canteen Creek (hereinafter, the “receiving stream”)
is simply overwhelming.
The Record is replete with testimony to the effect that Respondents’
treatment plant functioned poorly, and often not at
all.
Respondents’
polishing lagoon was also often
in very poor condition.
Respondents
were repeatedly informed over a period of many months
of the unsatisfactory
condition of the treatment plant and the polishing lagoon; however,
efforts toward compliance were slow and generally ineffective during
this period.
The picture which emerges from the Record
is one of neglect,
regarding both the function
of the treatment system and the quality of
its effluent.
More specifically,
on May 10,
1972, Mr.
James
E.
Kammueller,
an
Agency sanitarian, made the first of many investigative visits
to
Respondents’ premises.
(5/17/73
R.
8).
Mr. Kammueller described Respondents’
treatment facility as
including a sewage collection system terminal
station,
a package extended aeration treatment plant and
a polishing lagoon.
(5/17/73
R.
9).
No effluent coordination or disinfection
is
provided
at the polishing lagoon prior to discharge into the receiving stream.
(5/17/73 R.
9).
The lagoon was built
in
1965 to serve
58 mobile homes.
As the
park grew, the sewer terminal
lift station and the treatment plant were
constructed to accommodate approximately
130 mobile homes.
(5/17/73
R.
10).
Mr.
Karnmueller ran a dissolved oxygen test on the aeration tank at
the package plant and found that it contained no dissolved oxygen.
(5/17/73
R.
17).
Mr.
Kammueller
stated
that
insufficient
air
was
being
supplied
to
the
aeration
tank because one of the two blower units was not
in
service
(5/17/73
R.
18).
Mr.
Kammueller
also
ran
a
sludge
test
on
the aeration tank and found insufficient solids present.
14—391
-4-
Mr.
Kammueller showed Mr. Tn one how to perform the tests required
by the Agency.
Respondents
had not been submitting monthly operational
reports
as
required
and
had
no
certified
treatment
plant
operator.
(5/17/73
R.
19).
The witness noted that the polishing lagoon was dark
green
in color,
had
a septic H2S odor and was causing discoloration of
the receiving stream.
(5/l7/7~R.
19).
Mr.
Kammueller testified that
the lagoon was not baffled to prevent the discharge of floating scum
and debris and that there was duck weed on the lagoon surface.
(5/17/73
R.
20). Mr. Trione was informed of
all of these conditions.
On May 22,
1972,
Mr.
Kammueller again visited Respondents’
preimtses
and observed that the aeration equipment at the package plant was still
not in service;
that the polishing lagoon had turned gray-green in
color and had
a septic odor; that the surface of the lagoon was 50
covered by duck weed; that solid sewage was bypassing to the lagoon;
and that lagoon effluent was not being disinfected.
(5/17/73 R.
28).
Trione was again advised of these unsatisfactory conditions.
On July 20,
1972,
Mr.
Kammueller observed that the terminal lift
station was not in service and that
all sewage was
bypassing directly
to the polishing lagoon.
(5/17/73
R.
35).
The lagoon itself was black,
covered with duck weed, and had
a strong septic odor. (5/17/73 R.
36).
The witness
testified that the receiving stream was black
in color
downstream
of the lagoon effluent discharge.
(5/17/73
R.
36).
Again,
on July 28,
1972,
Mr. Kamueller noted that sewage was passing directly
to the lagoon,
that the lagoon was black, septic and foul smelling, and
that the receiving stream was black, and septic downstream of the
effluent discharge.
(5/17/73
R.
46).
On his August
1,
1974 inspection,
Mr.
Kammueller noted that the
receiving stream,
downstream of the lagoon discharge, contained thick,
black sludge deposits which were two to three inches
deep.
(5/17/73
R.
54).
On October 26,
1972,
Mr. Kammueller observed not only black sludge deposits
in the receiving stream, but also floating duck weed and white foam.
(5117173
R.
75).
We will not exercise ourselves further in detailing the violations
testified to by Mr.
Kammueller.
The witness inspected Respondents’
premises on numerous occasions between May 10, 1972 and April
18,
1973;
on each date his observations of violative conditions were substantially
the same.
Complainants’ Exhibits 18 through 47 (in particular, Complainant’s
Exhibits 32 and 47),
being photographs of and reports pertaining to the
violations described by Mr.
Kammueller, are more than sufficient to
substantiate his testimony.
We find that Respondents’
have violated
Rules
203(a)
and 402 of Chapter 3,
as alleged
in Count
II, paragraph b.
14— 392
-5—
c)
Caused or allowed the concentrations of
iron, ammonia
nitrogen and sulfate
in the unnamed tributary of Canteen Creek
to exceed the levels set forth
in Rule 203(f)
of Chapter 3,
all
in violation of Rules
203(f)
and 402 of Chapter
3.
In addition to
a chronically malfunctioning sewage treatment
facility,
the Record indicates that Respondents have
a pollution
problem resulting from mineral-laden surface run-off which also
enters the receiving stream.
Respondents’
property is covered
by
gob piles and refuse piles which developed during the period when
previous owners
had conducted extensive coal mining operations.
As
a result,
the surface water which courses through Respondents’
property acquires high concentrations of various elements and
carries them to the receiving stream.
(5/17/73
R.
38).
As depicted
in Complainant’s Exhibit 37, most of
the run-off enters
the receiving
stream at
a point below the discharge from Respondents’ polishing
lagoon;
however,
small
amounts also flow into the lagoon itself
(5/17/73
R.
106) and to the treatment plant through feeder sewers.
Downstream of the gob pile drainage (which
is orange
in
color)
the receiving stream becomes
orange, with deposits of coal fines up
to six inches deep in the stream bed.
(5/17/73
R.
54).
The stream
bed also contains orange deposits two to three inches deep in places.
(5/17/73
R.
55).
See also 5/17/73
R.
64, 75 and 6/20/73
R.
5.
Complainant conducted extensive sampling and testing of Respondents’
polishing lagoon and its effluent; of
the receiving stream at various
points;
and of the drainage from Respondents’
gob piles.
The results
of this testing,
indicated
in Complainant’s
Exhibits 39-45, 48 and 50,
convince this Board that Respondents have violated Rules 203(f)
and
402 of Chapter
3.
The standard for iron concentration
set by Rule 203(f)
of Chapter
3 is
1
mg/l.
On August
1,
1972,
the concentration of iron in the
receiving stream at
a point immediately upstream from Respondents’
discharge was 0.6 mg/l;
the concentration of iron
in the drainage from
Respondents’ gob pile, before entering the receiving stream, was 40 mg/l;
the concentration of
iron
in the receiving stream at
a point
75 feet
downstream from the gob pile drainage discharge was 48 mg/l; and the
concentration of iron
in the receiving stream at
a point 350 feet downstream
from the gob pile drainage discharge was 2.4 mg/l.
The standard for ammonia nitrogen
set by Rule 203(f)
of Chapter
3
is
1.5 mg/l.
On August 1,
1972, the concentration of ammonia nitrogen
in
the receiving stream at
a point immediately upstream from the discharge
of Respondents’
lagoon effluent was 23 mg/l; the concentration of ammonia
nitrogen
in Respondents’
lagoon effluent
was 26 mg/l;
and the concentration
of ammonia nitrogen
in the receiving stream at
a point 100 feet downstream
from the point of Respondents’
lagoon effluent discharge was 23 mg/l.
The standard for sulphate concentration set by Rule 203(f)
of
Chapter
3 is
500 mg/I.
On August
1,
1972,
the concentration of sulphate
in the receiving stream at
a point immediately upstream from the discharge
14—393
-6—
of Respondents’
lagoon effluent was 200 mg/l;
the concentration
of
sulphate
in the drainage from Respondents’ gob pile,
before entering
the receiving stream, was 1800 mg/l; and the concentration of sulphate
in the receiving stream at
a point 350 feet downstream from the point
at which the gob pile drainage entered the receiving stream was
100 mg/i.
(See Complainant’s Exhibit
38).
Therefore, although the concentration
of sulphate
in Respondents’ lagoon effluent is not violative of Rule
203(f),
a violation of Rule 402
is substantiated.
We
are satisfied from the figures above, and from the results
of
similar analyses contained in the cited exhibits, that Respondents
have violated Rule 203(f)
and 402 of Chapter
3.
Respondents’ liability
for the violative gob pile drainage
is
clear
in the wake of Meadowlark
Farms,
Inc.
v.
Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
17 Ill.
App. 3d 851,
308 N.E.
2d 829 (1974) and Freeman Coal Mining Corporation
v.
Illinois
Pollution Control Board,
313 N.E. 2d 616 (1974).
d)
Caused or allowed the level
of fecal
colifonii in the unnamed
tributary of Canteen Creek to exceed 400 per 100 ml
in violation of
Rules
203(g)
and 402 of Chapter
3.
Complainant conducted extensive sampling and testing of the receiving
stream.
The results pertaining to levels of fecal
coliforms are
summarized below:
Exhibit
Sampling Date
Fecal coliforms/lOO ml.
43C
8/1/72
100,000
43D
8/1/72
31,000
43F
8/1/72
5,900
43G
8/1/72
1,000
44B
10/26/72
890,000
44C
10/26/72
750,000
44E
10/26/72
140,000
Rule 203(g)
is
as follows:
(g)
Based
on
a minimum of five samples
taken over not
more than
a 30-day period, fecal
coliforms (STORET
number
-
31515)
shall
not exceed
a geometric
mean of 200 per 100 ml, nor shall more than 10
of the samples during any 30-day period,
exceed
400 per 100 ml.
Notwithstanding that the levels of fecal
coliforms
in the receiving
stream are grossly in excess of 200/l00ml,
we cannot find Respondents
in violation of Rule 203(g)
because Complainant failed to introduce
the results
of five samples taken over not more than
a 30-day period.
(e)
Caused or allowed the effluent from its sewage treatment
facilities
to contain settleable solids,
floating debris,
scum and
sludge solids, and color,
odor and turbidity above obvious levels,
all
in violation of Rule 403 of Chapter
3.
14—394
-7-
We find the violations alleged.
We reach this decision on
the
basis of the evidence treated under Count
II
(b) and,
in pertinent
part, Count
II
(c) (none
of which will be reiterated here)
as
supplemented by Complainant’s numerous photographs and Complainant’s
Exhibit 38.
f)
Caused or allowed the effluent from its
sewage treatment
facilities
to exceed 400 fecal coliforms per 100 ml
in violation
of Rule 405 of Chapter
3.
Complainant’s Exhibit
38 indicates that on the dates specified
below the effluent from Respondents’ polishing lagoon contained the
following levels of
fecal
coliforms:
Sampling Date
~
5/16/72
5,000
5/16/72
100,000
5/22/72
1,100
7/21/72
100,000
7/28/72
180,000
8/01/72
30,000
8/01/72
50,000
8/09/72
38,000
We find that Respondents have violated Rule 405 of Chapter 3; the
figures
speak
for
themselves.
g)
Caused,
threatened, or allowed the discharge or emission
of contaminants,
including but not limited to hydrogen sulfide odors,
so as
to
cause or tend to cause air pollution
in Illinois either
alone or in combination with contaminants from other sources
in
violation
of p9(a)
of the Act.
More than 250 pages
of theRecord involved the testimony of citizens
residing in Respondents’ mobile home park or in close proximity to
Respondents’ property.
A total
of 28 citizen witnesses testified regarding
the presence of
a severe odor nuisance and regarding the origin thereof.
The witnesses agreed that an odor problem existed;
however,
there was
a sharp difference of opinion
as to whether the offensive odor came from
Respondents’
polishing lagoon
or from a nearby egg ranch.
Complainant presented six witnesses who stated, with
little
variation, that the odors were offensive to the point of nausea; that the
odors restricted their use of yards;
and that they could definitely
differentiate between the odors emanating from the egg ranch and the
offensive odors emanating from Respondents’
lagoon.
(See,
for example,
the testimony of Mrs. Frances Bauer,
5/3/73
R.
5-35).
—
395
-8-
Respondents introduced the testimony of 22 witnesses who stated,
again
with
little
variation,
that
the
odors definitely emanated
from
the
egg
ranch,
certainly
not
from
Respondents’
lagoon,
and
that
the
odors
ceased
when
the
egg
ranch
terminated
operation
in
October
of
1972.
(See,
for
example,
the
testimony
of
Mr.
Richard
Jerashen,
7/25/72
R.
71—74).
Complainant’s
investigator,
Mr.
Kammueller,
noted
a
foul,
septic,
H~S, rotten
egg
odor
emanating
from
Respondents’
lagoon
on
each
o~his
many
visits.
(See,
for
example,
5/17/73
R.
28
and,
also,
Complainant’s
Exhibits
41,
42,
43A,
43B,
43C,
430,
44A,
44B,
44C).
We
are
convinced,
from the testimony of Mr.
Kamniueller and
Complainant’s
citizen
witnesses
and
from
the
above-described
poor
condition
of
the
lagoon
(direct
sewage
bypass,
black
color,
duck
weed,
etc.)
that
Respondents’
polishing
lagoon
was
a
source
of
such
foul
odors
as
to
constitute
a
violation
of
Section
9(a)
of
the
Act.
We
feel
that
the
diametrically
opposed
testimony
of
Record
may
be
the
result
of
the
similarity
between
the
odor
which
might
be
expected to
emanate
from
an
egg
ranch
and
the
“rotten
egg”
odor
characteristic
of
a
lagoon
in
septic
condition.
We
have
no
doubt
that
offensive odors
arose
from
both
sources;
however, we find that either alone or in
combination
with
the
egg
ranch,
Respondents
have
violated Section
9(a)
of
the
Act.
h)
Failed
to
submit
operating
reports
in
violation
of
Rule
501(a)
of Chapter
3.
This allegation was not contested by Respondents.
Complainant
showed that Respondents failed to submit operating reports
in violation
of Rule 501(a)
of Chapter
3.
(5/17/73 R.
19).
i)
Operated the said sewage treatment facilities without
a properly
certified operator
in
violation of Rules 1.02 and 5.01
of SWB-2.
This
allegation
was
admitted
by Respondent
Trione.
(8/1/73
R.
388).
j)
Failed
to
submit
a
project
completion schedule for the modification
or addition of controls
to meet applicable effluent standards
in violation
of Rule 1002 of Chapter 3.
Complainant showed that Respondents failed to submit the requisite
project completion schedule.
(5/17/73
R.
90).
14
~-
396
-9—
The allegations of Count III of the Amended Complaint relate
specifically to the drainage from Respondents’
gob piles (discussed
above) into the unnamed tributary to Canteen Creek.
This unnamed
tributary is the same body into which Respondents’
lagoon effluent
discharges, and we have termed it the receiving stream.
Paragraphs
(a) and
(c) of Count
II charge that the drainage
from Respondents’ gob piles violated Section 12(a)
of the Act and
Rule 203(f)
of Chapter 3
in that the drainage contained excessively
high concentrations of iron, manganese, sulfate and dissolved solids.
Complainant’s evidence pertaining to these allegations consisted
of testimony (see, for example, 6/20/73
R.
5,
6) and numerous sample
analyses
(see,
for example,
Complainant’s Exhibits 38, 43D-G, 44D,
44E, 488-0).
This evidence shows gross violations of the iron,
manganese,
sulfate and dissolved solids standards and sustains
Complainant’s allegations.
Finally,
in Paragraph
(b) of Count
III, Complainant alleges that
the drainage from Respondents’ gob piles caused or allowed unnatural
sludge or bottom deposits, floating debris, visible oil, odor, unnatural
plant
or algae growth or turbidity,
or matter
in concentrations or
combinations toxic or harmful
to human, animal, plant or aquatic life
of other than natural origin to be present
in the receiving stream,
in violation of Rule 203(a)
of Chapter
3.
Complainant’s evidence pertaining to this allegation consisted of
testimony to the effect that the drainage from Respondents’ gob piles
was degrading the receiving stream
(see, for example, 5/17/73
R.
38,
64,
65,
106) and numerous photographs depicting that degradation.
(Complainant’s Exhibits
28, 29,
31, 32, 47).
This evidence shows gross
violation of Rule 203(a) of Chapter 3.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of
law of the Board.
IT
IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Respondents
shall
cease and desist from the violations found
herein, with the exception of those violations caused by the drainage
from Respondents’ gob piles.
Respondents
shall, within 180 days from the
date of this Order,
submit
to this Board and to the Environmental
Protection
Agency
a compliance program detailing the measures they intend to follow in
order
to abate the violations
caused by the gob pile drainage.
2.
Respondents
shall
pay to the State of Illinois,
the sum of
$2,000.00 within 35 days from the date of this Order.
Penalty payment
by certified check or money order payable to the State of Illinois shall
be made to:
Fiscal
Services Division,
Illinois Environmental
Protection
Agency, 2200 Churchill
Road, Springfield,
Illinois
62706.
3.
Respondents shall, within 180 days from the date of this Order,
submit to this Board and to the Environmental Protection Agency,
a
statement detailing what measures they intend to follow in order to bring
the entire operation into compliance.
14
—
397
-1 0-
I,
Christan
L. Moffett~Clerk of the Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
do hereby certify that the above Order was adopted on
this
~
day
~
1974
by
a
vote of
~
~
14
—
393
