ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 20,
1973
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 72—465
DEL MONTE CORPORATION,
Respondent.
Mr. Alan
R. ~4iller,on behalf of
the Complainant,
and
Mr. Donald A. Manzullo and Gerald W.
Fearer,
on behalf of the Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr. Odell)
On December
1,
1972,
the Pollution Control Board received
from the Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter Agency)
a
Complaint which states:
1.
That before,
on and after August 19,
1971 and to
the date hereof,
Respondent owned, operated and controlled
a
cannery with waste treatment facilities in LaSalle County,
at
Mendota, Illinois proximate to Vermilion and Second Creeks.
2.
That in the ownership,
operation and control of its
waste treatment facilities, Respondent has and continues to be in
violation of the Environmental Protection Act
(hereinafter cites
as Act)
and is in violation of the Rules and Regulations pursuant
thereto in that in addition to other wrongful acts, Respondent has:
(a)
caused, threatened and allowed the discharge of contain—
inants,
as defined by the Act,
into Vermilion and Second Creeks
so as
to cause water pollution in Illinois in violation of Section
12(a)
of the Act;
(b)
caused discharges producing color, odor or other conditions
in such
a degree as to create a nuisance,
in violation of
Rule 1.03
(c)
of SWB-14, effective pursuant to Section 49(c)
of
the Act;
(c)
on or about September
9,
1971 caused the discharge of
substances
in concentrations harmful to aquatic life causing
a
fish kill of 26,060 fish in Second and Vermilion Creeks with a
value of $914.52
in violation of Rule
1.03(d)
of SWB—l4, effective
pursuant to Section 49(c)
of the Act;
10—397
—2—
(d) on September 9,
1971 caused the dissolved oxygen content
in Second and Vermilion Creeks to reach below 4.0 mg/i causing
a
fish kill of 26,060 fish with a value of $914.52 in violation of
Rule 1.05(a)
of SWB-14,
effective pursuant to Section 49(c)
of
the Act;
and
(e)
operated facilities for the treatment of industrial
and
other wastes which do not provide for the removal of color, odor
and turbidity below obvious levels,
in violation of Rule
1.08-
10(b)
(3)
of SWB-l4,
effective pursuant to Section 49(c)
of the
Act.”
On April
6,
1973,
the Pollution Control Board received from
the Agency an Amended Complaint which alleged the following
additional violations by the Respondent:
(f)
caused, threatened and allowed the discharge of contam-
inated cooling water,
as defined by the Act, into Second Creek so
as to cause water pollution in Illinois in violation of Section
12(a)
of the Act;
(g)
constructed, installed and operated equipment capable of
causing or contributing to water pollution,
or designed to prevent
water pollution,
of
a type designated
by
the Reculations of the
Pollution Control Board, without a permit granted
by
the Environ-
mental Protection Agency,
in violation of Section
12(b)
of the Act;
(h) deposited contaminants,
as defined by the Act, upon the
land in
a place and manner so as to create
a water pollution
hazard,
in violation of Section 12(d)
of the Act;
(1)
caused discharges,
into Second Creek, producing color,
odor or other conditions
in
such
a degree as
to create a nuisance,
in violation of Pollution Control Board Regulations, Chapter
3-203
(a), effective pursuant to Section
27 of the Act;
(j)
caused the discharge of contaminated cooling water, into
Second Creek,
in such
a degree as to create
a nuisance,
in violation
of Pollution Control Board Regulations,
Chapter 3-402,
effective
pursuant to Section
27 of the Act;
(k) operated facilities for the treatment of industrial and
other wastes which do not provide for the removal of color, odor
and turbidity below obvious
levels, and thereby caused discharges
producing color, odor or other conditions
in such a degree as to
create a nuisance,
in violation of Pollution Control Board
Regulations, Chapter
3-403, effective pursuant to Section
27 of
the Act.’
—
On
November
6,
1973,
a hearing was held on this case
by
Mr.
Donald G. Wetterauer, Hearing Officer,
in
Ottawa,
Illinois.
During
this hearing the Complainant and Respondent submitted a
joint
Stipulation
and
Proposal
for
Settlement which included
additional facts, results of water analyses, photographs, and a
recort
of
a pollution-caused fish kill.
Additional
facts
incleded
in
the
joint
Stipulation
were
that
‘The
waste
treatment
facility
consists
of
a
5—cell
lagoon
system
with
a
spray
irrigation
field.
The
discharges
from
the
treatment
facility
empty
into
Second
Creek,
which
is
a
body
of
water
of
the
State
of
Illinois,
The
principal
effluent
into
the
was to
treatment
facility
is
waste
water
from
the
canning
of
corn,
peas,
limo
beans
and
otner
vegetaule
products,
cieeenutng
upon
the
season
here.
Prior
to
the
completion
of
the
spray
irrigation
field
in
1972,
the
efifluent
from
the
5—cell
lagoon
system
was
discharged
directly
into
Second
Creek,
,
.
.
Since
1972,
Del
Monte
has
operated
a
spray
irrication
field
and
does
not
discharge
directly
from
the
fifth
Lagoon
into
the
Second
Creek.~~
A
permit
has
been
issued
on
May
18,
1973,
by
the
Environmental
Protection
Acency
for
the
operation
of
this
spray
irrigation
field,
and
the
use
of
the
field
has
resulted
in elimination of
the
objectionable
qualities
of
the
effluent.”
In
August
and
September,
1971
the
effluent
ranged
in
E.O.D,
from
29
mq/l
to
53
mq/l,
and
in
Total
Suspended
Solids
from
124
mg/i
to
242
mg/I,
as
is
indicated
in
the
accompanying
‘Summary
of
Laboratory
Analyses
and
Field
Observations.”
The
mint
StipulatIon
of
November
6,
1973,
states
that
“Presently
the
quality
of
the
effluent
is
as
follows:
Total
Suspended
Solids
-
14,5
mg/l
average
i3,O.i).
—
1.5
mg/i
average.’
Of
the
sampling
sites
in
the
accompanying
table,
location
21-1
(Upstream)
,
B—i
(Lagoon
e:Ffluent)
,
C-i
(Downstream
at
U.S.
34)
,
and
C—2
(Downstream
at
County
Road
19)
are
especially
significant.
Sampling
site
C-3
is
downstream
from
the
confluence
of
Second
Creek
(along
which
the
Del
Monte
complex
is
located)
with
effluenl
from
Mendota
S,T,P,
On
September
9,
1971,
the
stream—dessotved
oxygen
went
:firom
9.0
mg/i
upstream
(sample
A—i,
clear
water
and
abundant
fish)
from
the
Del
Monte
effluent
dis-
charge
to
1.4
mg/l
downstream
(sample
C—i,
green
water
with
fishy
odor,
numerous
dead
fish
hut
none
observed
alive)
from
the
effluent
discharge.
On
September
9,
1971,
VIr.
Dames
Langbein,
Fishery
Biologist,
Illinois
Department
oi~Conservation,
observed
the
fish
kill
along
Second
Creek
near
the
Del
Monte
complex
and
submitted
his
report
(Compinonant’s
exhibit
No.
8)
on
September
10,
1971.
Mr.
Langhein
examined
and
sampled
four
locations
as
follows,
which
were
near
the
respective
Agency
sample
sites
that
are
indicated
in
tarentoeses
DEL MONTE CORPORATION
SUMMARY
OF
LABORATOR’Z
ANALYSES
AND
FIELD
OBSERVATIONS
*
Location
B.O,D,
T.S.S.
Stream
NH3-N
NO3
T.
Coli/
F.
Coli/
Field
observations
and
date
mg/i
mg/i
D.O.
mg/l
mg/i
100
ml
100
ml
pH
(1971)
mg/l
Water
Fish
A-i
Upstream
8.19
2.2
17
—
-
-
7,000
5,000
8.5
Clear
Abundant
9.9
1.0
3
9.0
2.8
1.10
800
450
8.8
Clear
Numerous
9.14
3,0
27
—
0.43
1.45
1
600
1
170
8.2
Clear
Abundant
,
,
B-i
Lagoon Effluent
8.19
53
242
5,000
4,000
8.9
Green,
no
odor
9.9
29
124
4,0**
9,4
0.70
0
0
8.6
Green,
Running
odorous
from dis—
charge
9.14
32
210
10.8
0.16
12,200
800
7.4
Green,
Present
odorous
B-2
Retort
Effluent
8.19
2.1
12
91,000
29,000
8.0
Clear,
no
odor
9.9
0.9
4
4.0**
0.26
0.05
2,070
790
8.2
9.14
22
12
—
2.05
0.12
900
410
7.6
Clear,
no
________
______odor
_________________
C-i Downstream
(U.S.
34)
8.19
5.2
22
—
—
—
7,000
6,000
8.2
Green,scum
Present
9.9
14
66
1.4
6.0
0.65
11,000
430
8.4
Green,fishy Many dead,
odor
none
alive
9.14
3.4
13
1.55
0.13
1,500
210
7,6
Green,
no
Present
odor
DEL
MONTE
CORPORATION
SUMMARY
OF
LABORATORY
ANALYSES
AND
FIELD
OBSERVATIONS
(CONCLUDED)
*
Location
B.O.D,
T,S.S.
Stream
and date
mg/i
mg/i
0.0,
(1971)
mg/i
NH3-N
mg/i
NO3
mg/i
T.
1
Coli/
00 ml
F.
1
Coli/
00 ml
pH
Field Observations
Water
Fish
C-2 Downstream
(County Road
19)
—
—
—
—
-
—
—
8.19
—
—
—
9,9
36
110
8.8
3.4
0.44
6,000
590
8.4
Green,
fishy
odor
Many dead,
none alive
9.14
3,8
33
—
1.35
0.17
11,000
1,800
7.8
Green,no
odor
Present
C—3
Downstream
(After
D-1
conflu
ence)
8.19
—
9,9
14
—
79
7,
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
7.5
0.50
150,000
24,000
8.4
Green,
Many
fishy
odor
~
~-..
-~
.•.•.
--
—
dead
..
D-~l Nendota
STP
Effluent
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
8.19
—
—
9,9
247
36
—
—
—
9,000,000
1,100,000
6.3
—
—
.-
.~
...
-.-
....
*
From Complainant’s exhibits #1 through
#5.
**
Test ran on stream 400 feet below these discharges.
—
Test not run.
0
0
(J-~
—
6—
Location 1,
C.B.
and
Q, Railroad bridge
(near
B-I,
Lagoon
effluent)
.
“Carcasses, primarily of minnows,
but also of black bullheads and common white
suckers.
The air temperature was 88°Fand the
water temperature was 85°F.
The stream’s water
was pea green in color.”
Location
2,
U.S.
34 bridge
(near
C-i,
Downstream)
.
“Water
was very green.
The water temperature was 85°F,
•
.
.
An abundance
of dead
fish,
mostly minnows.
No
live fish were observed.”
Location
3,
road bridge
(near C-2, Downstream).
“1 observed
the first game
fish carcasses
of my investigation.
Also,
numerous white
sucker carcasses were
observed.
The
water
was
very green,
indicating
a
very heavy algae bloom.
The water temperature was
84°F.”
Location
4,
Route
i3A
bridge
(near C-3,
Downstream).
“I
observed
an abundance
of minnows
(dead)
in the
2.0
inch range
The
water at this point was very green,
indicating
a very
heavy
algae bloom.”
Mr.
Lanqbein
‘learned
from Jeffery
N.
Baile,
216 East 6th
Street,
Mendota,
Illinois,
that
the
fish kill had started on September
6,
1971.
According
to Jeffcrv,
numerous
fish were at
the
surface
of
the water, gulping air and
swimming
in circles near Route
34
bridge”
(Location
2)
“This investigation showed
that
an estimated 26,060 fishes were
killed,
valued
at
$914.52.
The
orincipal game fish killed were
smallmouth bass
and
sunfish.
Minnows made
up the
largest number
of
all
fishes killed.
The commercial
species
involved were
earn,
redhorse,
and bullheads.
During
the
Hearing
on November
6,
1973
two
15—year—old boys
testified
that
in
September,
1971
they
saw
dead
fish
at
the
cringe
a’
half-mile
downstream
from
Del
Monte.
Sherman
Brumly
saw
“a
lot
of
dead
fIsh
laying
around
on
the
bank
and
in
the
water”
(R.7)
.
On
September
9,
1971
John
Robeson
saw
“a
lot
o:f
dead
fish
and
there
was
suds
around”
(R.9)
.
He
also
indicated
that
during
his
most
recent
(August
or
September,
1973)
fishing
in
this
area,
Second
Creek
was
“pretty
good”
(H. 10)
and
the
water
was
clear.
Color
photographs
(Complainant
s
group
exhibit
6,
taken
August
19,
1L97l;
and
group
exhibit
7,
taken
September
9,
1971)
were
submitted
during
the
November
6,
1973
Smarin
which
showed
the
following:
)el
Nonte
plant
Exhibit
6
,
Figures
3
and
2.
Lagoon
2
=
Exhibit
6
Fiourn
3
Clear
water
at
sampte
.locaoncn
A—I
Des trearn
.nro:n
.Laqoo:
di soniarge
=
Exhibit
6
,
Fiqure
4:
Exhibit
7
Fi~
::
I.
—7—
Green water from lagoon discharge at sample location
B-i
=
Exhibit
6, Figure
5; Exhibit
7, Figure 3.
Retort cooling water at sample location 5-2
=
Exhibit
6,
Figure
6; Exhibit
7, Figure
2.
Green water at sample location C—i, Downstream
=
Exhibit
6,
Figure
7.
Dead fish in stream at sample location C—2
=
Exhibit
7,
Figures
4,
5,
and 6.
Stream at sample location C—3
=
Exhibit
7, Figures
7 and
8.
On the basis of evidence presented
in this record,
the
Pollution
Control
Board
finds
that
the
Respondent
is
in
violation
of items
(a)
,
(b)
,
(c)
,
(d)
,
and
(e)
in the original Complaint
and items
(g),
(I), and
(k)
in the Amended Complaint.
This
Opinion constitutes
the
Board’s findings of fact and conclusions
of law.
Under these considerations and the proposed terms of settle-
ment
in the joint Stimulation,
IT
IS
THE
ORDER
of
the
Pollution
Control Board that:
(1)
Del Monte will continue with operation of the spray
irrigation field, for which a permit
was
issued on May 18,
1973,
by the
Environmental Protection Agency,
in accordance with said
permit and in accordance with the regulations of the Pollution
Control Board and the provisions of
the
Environmental Protection
Act.
(2)
Respondent shall not discharqe effluent into
Second Creek
in violation of the regulations of the Pollution
Control Board and the provisions of the Environmental Protection
Act
(3)
As
a
part
of
this
settlement
agreement,
and
to
avoid
needless litigation, Del Monte agrees to remit $10,000.00 to the
State of Illinois,
of which $914.52 shall be placed in the
Game
and Fish Fund in the State Treasury pursuant to Section 42 of
the Environmental Protection Act.
Payment shall be by certified
check or money order made payable to the State of Illinois,
Fiscal Services Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield,
Illinois 62706.
Payment shall
be
tendered
within
30
days
of
the
adoption
of
this
Order.
(4)
This
settlement
in
no
way
exempts
Del
Monte from any
other
obligations
it
may
incur
as
a
result
of
its
operations
in
the
State
of
Illinois,
including any operations for which no
permit has been issued.
I,
Christan L. Moffett, Clerk
of
the
Pollution Control Board,
certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted
by
the
Board
on the
‘t’~
day of
~
,
1973,
by
a
vote
of
~
to
(~
V
~