ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January

6,

1971

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

v.

)

POE 71—289

VALLEY LINE COMPANY

William J.

Meyer,

Jr., Assistant Attorney General,

for the Environ-

mental Protection Agency

Jerry

G. Frederickson, Attorney

for Valley Line Company

OPINION OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Kissel):

On September

28,

1971,

the Environmental Protection Agency

(the “Agency”)

filed

a complaint with the Board alleging that the

Valley Line Company,

a corporation,

(“Valley Line”)

violated Section

12(a)

of the Environmental Protection Act

(the “Act”)

and Sections

1.03(b)

and

(c)

of SWB-l4

in that it owned or controlled

a barge

on the Illinois River which discharged oil

into that River.

A

hearing was held on the complaint

in Havana,

Illinois

on November

29,

1971 before Thomas

B. Kennedy, Hearing Officer.

Before discussing

the events of the case,

one procedural

point must be dealt with.

The Agency in its complaint alleged

a

violation of SWB—l4, yet the discharge occurred,

according to the

complaint,

in

the Illinois

River.

SWB-l4 covers only

the intra-

state waters of the state, not the designated interstate waters.

The Illinois River

is

an interstate water and

is governed by SWB-8.

However, we do not

feel that pleading the wrong regulation

in this

case

is governed by the rule requiring adequate notice in pleadings

as set forth in EPA

v.

Commonwealth Edison Company, PCB 70-4,

decided February

17,

1971.

There.the Board dismissed

a portion of

the complaint insofar as it applied to

a cohtaminant

(sulfur dioxide)

which was

not specifically mentioned in the complaint.

Here, how-

ever, while

the wrong regulation was alleged,

it was abundantly

clear

from the com~laintthat the alleged discharge of oil was to

the Illinois Rii~~,and Regulations almost identical

to Rules

1.03(b)

and

(c)

found in SWB-l4,

are contained

in SWB-8, which Regulation

does cover the Illinois

River.

We

feel, therefore, that notwith-

standing the mistake

in pleading, Valley Line had adequate notice

as

to the regulation which

it had allegedly violated.

3

—

355

---

The

facts in this case

are relatively simple.

Valley Line

admits that

it owned barge

#MV 273, and that it had been loaded

with #2 diesel fuel oil

at Wood River,

Illinois and delivered to

its mooring station north of Havana on June

13,

1971.

Actually,

the mooring station was located near Quiver Island.

The 190

x

50

foot barge contained oil which would be drawn by tugs operating

on the Illinois River.

The oil on the Illinois River was first noticed by

a

resident of Havana who then called the U.S. Coast Guard in St.

Louis.

He noticed the oil about 1-1/2 miles south of Quiver

Island where the barge was moored.

Then, on June

15,

1971,

a Coast

Guard employee and an Agency employee

took

a boat north from

Havana,

the oil slick about 1/2 mile from Havana,

and traced

it

to the barge

#MV 273.

No one was on the barge during the visit

by the Coast Guard employee

and

the Agency employee.

Both identi-

fied an underwater oil

leak on the starboard side of

the barge.

This

leak was

the only one

in the area and the oil slick pre-

viously described could be traced directly to

it.

Valley Line

admitted that the leak had occurred and further stated that by

7 o’clock on the

15th of June,

the leak had been temporarily

repaired and

the repairs were certified by the Coast Guard.

While there is some dispute as to the quantity of oil

lost,

it

was estimated that as much as

600 gallons

reached the Illinois

River.

For purposes

of our decision,

it is not necessary to deter-

mine

the exact amount of oil lost, but only that the oil was dis--

charged and that

it could be seen and traced over

a mile~downstream

of the discharge.

The case is governed by our decision

in

a previous

case,

EPA v.

Yetter Oil,

POE

71-246, decided November

22,

1971.

There

we held that the “uncontrolled discharge of oil” as had been

described by the witnesses in that case was “water pollution”

as

contemplated by the Act.

The facts

in this case are parallel to

those

in Yetter Oil,

supra.

An uncontrolled discharge was proven,

and it certainly had an effect on the Illinois River, covering

a

part of it for up to

a mile and

a half downstream

(a strip about

25-30

feet wide starting at the bank of the River).

The oil slick

prevented the recreational

use of the River because one witness

testified that he didn’t fish in the River as

a result of the oil

(R.

12).

We therefore

find both

a violation of Section 12(a) of

the Act and Rules

1.03(b)

and

(c) of SWB-8 on

the same basis as

discussed

in Yetter Oil.

3

—

356

---

For the violations, we

feel that Valley Line should pay

a

penalty in the amount of $1000.

This

is indeed

a more serious

violation than in the Yetter Oil case as it affects one of the

major Rivers of Illinois.

Valley Line will also be ordered to

cease and desist from further violations of the Act and

the Rules

of SWB-8 in the operation of the barge.

This opinion constitutes

the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board.

ORDER

After consideration

of the testimony and the exhibits,

the

Board hereby orders the following:

1.

Valley Line shall cease and desist from discharging

any oil

into the waters of the State which discharges

shall result in

a violation of the Act or the Regu-

lations promulgated thereunder.

2.

Valley Line shall pay

to the

State of Illinois,

in

penalty,

the amount of

$1,000 for the violation of

the Act and the applicable regulations

as stated

in

the Board’s opinion.

I,

Christan Moffett,

Clerk of the Pollution Control

Board, certify that the Board adopted the above Opinion and Order

this

6th day of January,

1972 by

a vote of 4-0.

3

—

351

---

.

.