ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February l~. 1974
)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
)
)
)
)
PCB 72-493
)
)
ROLAND W. FRIEDER d/b/a
)
JOLIET INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
)
)
MR. HARVEY M. SHELDON and
MR.
GEORGE IL KARCAZES, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERALS, appeared on behalf of the Environmental Protection
Agency
MR. ROBERT W. THOMAS and MR. JAMES T. BRADLEY, THOMAS, WALLACE,
FREEHAN AND BARON, LTD., appeared on behalf of Roland W.
Frieder
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. i)umelle):
The Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed a complaint
on December 14, 1972, alleging that Roland W. Frieder, d/b/a
Joliet Industrial District,(Frieder) violated the Environmental
Protection Act (Act) and the Illinois Sanitary Water Board Rules
and Regulations (SWB-8), continued in effect pursuant to Section
49 (c) of the Act. On January 15, 1973 the Agency filed an
amended complaint again alleging the violation of Section 12 (a)
of the Act and Rule 1.03 of SWB-8.
Roland W. Frieder is a co-partner of the Joliet Industrial
District (District) and is responsible for the daily operations and
management of the District. The District is located in Joliet,
Will County, Illinois. The District leases buildings to approximately
11 companies that are situated on its land.
The Board denies Mr. Frieder’s M~tj~~to Dismiss because this
case was set for a hearing without a quorum because a hearing is
mandatory in enforcement cases. The Board again denies the Motion
to Strike the complaint because the hearing officer was appointed
during a period when the Board lacked a quorum for the same reasons
as the Board originally denied the original Motion on March 15, 1973.
The Board again denies the Motion to Dismiss because the penalty
power is unconstitutional for the same reasons that the Board
originally denied the motion on August 9, 1973. The Board denies
the Motion to Dismiss because no Board member attended the hearing.
Section 32 states that ‘tA hearing may be attendedt1, it does not
require the attendance of a Board member.
11 —251
Mr.
Frieder has been a part-owner of the District since
1951 (R. 205). The, District has various long-term leases
with its tenants which provide that
Mr.
Frieder will furnish
them with a source of process water (R. 214, 215). Mr. Frieder
provides approximately 153,000 gallons per day of water to his
tenants (R. 218). Mr. Frieder’s lease agreements contain no
provision regarding industrial waste treatment, Five sewer
lines extend from the District’s property (R. 268, 267). However,
only two lines are active at the present time and only one is
the subject of this enforcement action (R. 268). The industrial
waste generated within
the District is
discharged through these
two sewer lines (R. 207).
The District is located approximately 400 yards from the
Des Plaines River and is
separated from the
river by the E.J. E~ E.
railroad tracks and land owned
by the Joliet
Metropolitan Sanitary
District.
The record establishes that the District has in the past provided
treatment for the waste
originating within the
District (R. 234).
Treatment
consisted
of a large septic tank
located on the land
between the
railroad
tracks
and
the Des
Plaines River (R. 2).
Approximately ten years ago, the Phoenix Company
proceeded to fill
in the area
between the
tracks and the Des
Plaines River (R. 235).
In the process
of
filling in the land, a large
catepillar tractor
partially fell into the septic tank which had been used by the
District (R. 235). This destruction of the septic tank and the
subsequent addition of a 600-ft. extension of the sewer
pipe which
ran from the old septic tank to the present site
of the
District’s
outfall to the Des Plaines River did not produce
any noticeable
effec
within the Joliet Industrial District (R. 235),
The
record does not
show any additional connection to the
6OO~ft,
extension of the
District~sindustrial sewer line (Ii. 121 and 212).
The Board
finds
that the District and Mr. Frieder are liable for the
industrial
wastes that are produced within the District~s boundary. The wastes
from the 11 tenants enter into a sewer system owned by the District
and controlled by the District, The District has
in the past provided
treatment for this industrial waste (R, 234). The
District and
Mr~
Frieder have exercised a sufficient degree of control over the waste
treatment system to warrant ~ finding that they are liable for the
waste generated by the tenants.
Mr. Frieder objected to any findings of violation because
the District’s sewer system had a tributary sewer
line to it
that extended beyond the District~s legal boundary (R. 269).
The Board agrees with Mr~Frieder in that the record does support
a finding that there exists a sewer tributary to the District.
However, Mr. Robert Hamilton, Mr. Frieder’s engineering consultant
stated that upon an examination of the tributary sewer line,
he ascertained that it had been flowing but on August 3, 1973 it
was not flowing (R. 276). Mr. Hamilton testified
that on the
same day he observed Frieder~soutfall sewer at the location
where it flowed into the Des Plaines River (R. 168). He testified
that the industrial sewer was flowing about one-half full of yellow
effluent (R. 169).
11 —252
-3-
The Board finds based on these facts, that Mr. Frieder is
responsible for the liquid waste which flows from the Joliet
Industrial District because he has allowed the discharge into the
Des Plaines River of these wastes.
The Agency bases its alleged violations upon the personal
observations of Theodore M. Denning, an Agency engineer, photographs
of the District’s effluent and chemical analysis of the effluent.
Mr. Denning conducted on-site inspections of the industrial out-fall
of the District on nine occasions within the time period alleged
by the amended complaint. Rule 1.03 of SWB-8 sets forth minimum
criteria which “apply to all waters at •all places and at all times
in addition to specific criteria”. This is the so-called four
freedoms from substances attributable to municipal and industrial
or other discharges that 1) will form bottom deposits
that may be detrimental to bottom biota 2) floating scum and
other materials that are unsightly or deleterious 3) produce
color or odor in such degree as to create a nuisance 4) are toxic
or harmful to human, plant, animal or aquatic life.
The Board finds, based upon the exhibits submitted by the
Agency, which include Mr. Denning’s inspection report for each
of his nine site visits and photographs taken by Mr. Denning
on three of his visits, that Mr. Frieder has violated Rule 1.03
(a) and (c) on the following dates: May 11, 1971, June 3, 1971,
June 10, 1971, June 15, 1971, June 27, 1971, January 12, 1972,
May 25, 1972, November 1, 1972 and January 17, 1973. The violation
of Rule 1.03 (a) was shown by Mr. Denningts observation of
high settleable contents of the effluent on May 11, 1971 (Agency
exhibit 1-a), June 3, 1971 visible settleable solids (Agency exhibit
1-b), June LU, 1971 high settleable solids (Agency exhibit 1-c);
high concentration of settleable solids, June 15, 1971 (Agency
enhibit 1-3); and January 17, 1973 high concentrations of solids
(Agency exhibit 14). The Board finds that Rule 1.03 (c) was
violated by Mr. Frieder based upon th~ personal observations of
Mr. Denning and photographs he took of the District’s outfall
on May 11, 1971 a strong odor and a bluish-green color (Agency
exhibit 1-a) ; June 3, 1971 a strong acidic-acid odor and a light
blue effluent (Agency exhibit 1-b); June
LU,
1971 an effluent
that ranged from deep blue to blue-green to orange to red-orange
to yellow-green (Agency exhibit 1-c); June 15, 1971 an effluent
that varied from kelly green to bluish-green to greenish-blue
to dark blue to light yellow-green (Agency exhibit l-d); July 27,
1971 an effluent with a deep bluish tint (Agency exhibit 12)
January 12, 1972 an effluent showing a brownish-orange color
and a bright yellow effluent (Agency exhibits 2 and 13); May 25, 1972
an effluent of a purple and bluish color to a green color (Agency
exhibit 3); November 1, 1972 an effluent with a redish to orange
to yellow (Agency exhibit 8); and January 17, 1973 an effluent
with a bright yellowish to orange red coloration (Agency exhibit 14)
11—253
-4-
While not at issue in this enforcement action the effluent
from Mr. Frieder’s industrial district
was
shown by Agency
laboratory tests to have produced an effluent with the following
parameters and levels: BOD 620 mg/1;pH2; trivalent chromium 1.3 mg/i;
ammonia 12 mg/i; phenol 280 mg/i; cya.pide 0.24 mg/i; iron 5.2 mg/i;
copper 25.9 mg/l; lead 4.4 mg/l; nickel 3.i mg/i; fecal coliform
200,000/100 ml; zinc 0.41 mg/i; and mercury 0.4 mg/l.
The Board finds that Mr. Frieder is responsible for the alleged
violations and rejects the contention that the violations were
caused by an overflow of the Joliet interceptor sewer which
serves Statesville Correctional Institution. Photographs introduced
by Mr. Frieder document that on occasion this interceptor has
overflowed and entered the manhole leading to the District’s
outfall sewer. This would only occur at times of excessive rain-
fall. Agency exhibit 18, a letter from Robert Hamilton who is
Mr. Frieder’s consulting engineer, to the Agency states that:
‘tCurrently the 15-inch sanitary sewer serving the
Joliet Industrial District passes through a man-hole
on a 24-inch City of Joliet interceptor sewer,
obstructing the flow in the sewer and severely
limiting its up-stream capacity.~
The Board finds that Mr. Frieder has created the defense upon which
he is partially resisting the Agency’s complaint, namely the over-
flow of the 24-inch Joliet interceptor sewer.
The Board also finds that Mr. Frieder has violated Section
12(a) of the Environmental Protection Act in that he has caused,
threatened, or allowed the discharges of contaminants in sufficient
quantities to have caused water pollution because
of
excessive
color, pH and suspended solids.
On June 3, 1971 Mr. Frieder and two Agency engineers, Mr.
Leland and Mr. Denning, held a meeting to discuss the water pollution
stemming from the District (Agency exhibit 1-b). The results of
the first four plant inspections by Mr. Denning were sent to Mr.
Frieder on December 9, 1971 by the Agency (Agency exhibit 1). Mr.
Frieder testified that the District has been discharging into
the river since approximately 1961 (R.234
).
Mr. Hamilton, Mr.
Frieder’s consulting engineer, testified that to correct the direct
discharge into the Des Plaines River, all that is required is a
matter of a couple of boors job to open the District’s sewer where
it flows through the Joliet 24-inch interceptor and block the
place where it exits the sewer (R, 190), On July 18, 1973 the Dis-
trict issued a permit to Mr. Frieder to discharge the wastes from the
District into the 24-inch City of Joiiet interceptor sewer
(Agency exhibit 11). Mr. Hamilton testified that as of August 3,
1973 the work had not been done (R. 190). Mr. Frieder testified
11 —254
that what was holding up the diversion to the Jpliet Sewage
Treatment Plant was negotiations over the cost per gallon of
treating the wastes (R. 223).
The Board has decided to levy a $1000 penalty for
the 9 days that a violation of Rule 1,03 of SWB-8 was found,
The Board further assesses a $500 penalty for violation of
Section 12(a) of the Environmental Protection Act.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law.
ORDER
The Illinois Pollution Control Board finds that Roland W.
Frieder d/b/a Joliet Industrial District has violated Rule 1.03
of SWB-8 and Section 9(a) of the Environmental Protection Act
and orders that Roland W. Frieder pay a $1,500 penalty for
those violations, 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 Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62706.
The Board orders that Roland W. Frieder d/b/a Joliet
Industrial District cease and desist from future violations
by March 15, 1974.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Christan L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted on
the j~,day of February, 1974
by
a vote
of
~S”—~
&tan~Mo~fl~e~
Illinois Pollution o trol Board
11
—255