ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October
24,
1972
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 72—259
NATIONAL BY-PRODUCTS,
INC.,
Respondent.
Fred
C.
Hopper,
Assistant Attorney General,
for the Environmental
Protection Agency;
Harvey B.
Stephens and Edward
J.
Cunningham for Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr.
Parker)
In this enforcement proceeding
the Complaint charges
Respondent with causing
the discharge of oil on land and into
a tributary
to the Sangamon River and
the River itself
so as
to cause water pollution,
and
to create
a water pollution hazard,
in violation of Sections 12
(a)
and
(d)
of the Environmental
Protection Act.
The Complaint also charges Respondent with
causing
the tributary and
the River
to contain floating oil,
scum and other floating material
in amounts sufficient
to be
unsightly or deleterious
in violation of Rule 1,03
(b)
of
SWB-14,
continued
in effect pursuant to Section
49
(c)
of the
Act.
Respondent’s Answer admitted
an oil spill on the land but
denied
that
it was done in
a place and manner so as
to create
water pollution,
and denied the other substantive allegations
of
the Complaint.
At the public hearing,
held September
1,
1972,
it turned
out that most
of the facts were undisputed,
including
all of the
important ones.
Respondent had an unused closed end tank
(10-
12 feet
in diameter by
25 feet
long)
on its Decatur plant
premises that had been used
to store No.
6 fuel oil
(R.
54,
57),
Respondent’s plant manager testified
that they planned
to cut
open
the tank, which was lying on its side,
and use one half
of
it in
a plant process
(R.
49-50,
60,
see also
41).
They knew
the tank still contained some oil and the plan was
to drain the
remaining oil out behind
a nearby levee and cover it with sand
(R.
50)
.
Respondent’s employees knew there was
a drain tile
6
—
37
approximately 200 feet down from the tank,
and took the
precaution of building a dam so that the spilled oil would
not reach that drain tile
(R.
50,
58).
When Respondent’s employees cut into the tank on Friday,
October
1,
1971 with a cutting torch,
the tank, which contained
400 to 2,000 gallons of oil
(R.
40,
44,
56)
,
rolled apart and
spilled oil onto the ground
(R.
50,
65).
What Respondent’s
employees did not realize was that there was another under-
ground drain tile, hidden from view,
nearby, which drain tile
led to a ditch which in turn drained to the Sangamon River
(R.
51
).
This second drain tile was located about 150
feet down from the tank, had been capped
(R.
45,
51)
,
and was
covered with leaves and an inch of dirt
(R.
51).
Respondent’s employees did not learn of the second drain
tile until several days after the oil spill
(R.
41,
50—51)
which in the meantime had been detected by several environ-
mentalists from Millikin University who were boating along and
sampling the nearby River
(R. 9—10).
The environmentalists
noticed an oil slick on the River,
traced it to the drain tile
(second)
on Respondent’s property, and followed it several
miles downstream
(R, 10—11,
31),
in the process of which they
found one oil covered bird
(belted kingfisher)
that died later
(R.
14, 22-23).
The environmentalists reported the incident to
the local newspaper
(R.
24)
,
and Respondent first learned that
oil had reached the River from
a newspaper account
(R.
57,
63).
After seeing the newspaper publicity,
Respondent’s employees
discovered the second drain tile, found that its cap had eroded
away
(R.
51-52), and that the oil had found its way through the
tile into the ditch, and thence to the River
(R.
52).
While an
estimated 750 gallons of oil spilled oiito the ground
(R.
40,
46),
apparently only about 30 to
50 gallons reached the River
(R,
56-57).
The environmentalists testified at the hearing about the
nature and extent of the oil slicks they observed,
and photographs
they had taken of the River were placed in the record by the
Agency.
These photographs
(Agency Exh.
1)
show floating oil on
the River and oil deposits along the River bank and on the
environmentalists’ canoe
(R.
13-14,
see also 54).
Upon learning of the presence of oil in the River, Respondent
undertook prompt and effective clean-up steps.
A trap was imme-
diately installed at the ditch to prevent further oil drainage
to the River
(R.
52), and several boats
sent out on the River
laid down straw to absorb the oil
(R.
37—38,
42,
53).
The
clean-up operation lasted about a week
(R,
54) and cost Respondent
an estimated $1,200 to $1,500
(R.
56).
—2—
6
—
38
Upon the record evidence we find that Respondent did
cause the discharge of oil onto land,
and did allow the oil
to flow into the Sangamon River
so as to cause water
pollution.
The evidence amply supports each of the allega-
tions of the Complaint,
and we conclude that Respondent has
violated Sections 12
(a)
and
(d)
of the Act and the relevant
rules and regulations in effect at the time the oil spill
occurred.
Consistent with past decisions of this Board we assess
a money penalty of
$500.
We decline to set a higher penalty
because of the accidental, one-time nature of the oil spill
into
the River and in view of the prompt steps taken by
Respondent as soon as it learned the oil had reached the River
in minimizing the effects of the spill and removing the
spilled oil from the River,
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law.
ORDER
Respondent shall pay to the State of Illinois by
November 30,
1972 the sum of $500.00
as a penalty for the
violations found in this proceeding.
Penalty payment by
certified check or money order payable to the State of
Illinois shall be made to:
Fiscal Services Division,
Illinois EPA,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield,
Illinois,
62706.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, certify that the ,4bove Opinion and Order was
adopt~don the
~
ri
day of
_______________,
1972, by a vote
of
“3.
to
C
___
~
~
6
—39