ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 13, 1973

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 72—24l

ABAM BUILDING CORPORATION,

Respondent.

Steven C.

Bonaguidi,

Assistant Attorney General,

on behalf of

Complainant;

Albert J. Armonda, on behalf of Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF

THE

BOARD

(by Mr. Seaman)

On June 14,

1972,

the Agency filed complaint against

Respondent, ABAM Building Corporation, the owner and operator

of

the

ABAM Shopping Center located near Northbrook,

Cook County,

Illinois.

The Agency alleges that Respondent has caused or

allowed the discharge of sewage from its septic system into

a storm drain which discharges into

a roadside ditch which flows

into

the Skokie Lagoons so as to cause or tend to cause water

pollution in violation of Section

12

(a)

of the Environmental

Protection Act.

More specifically, the Agency charges that the alleged

discharge from Respondent’s septic system contains substances

which settle and form putrescent or otherwise objectionable

sludge deposits and,

further, that the alleged discharge contains

substances which cause obvious color, odor and turbidity in

violation of Rules 1.03

(a), 1.03

(c),

1.08,

10

(b)

(1)

and

10

(b)

(3)

of the Illinois Sanitary Water Board Rules and

Regulations SWB—l4.

Respondent has been the owner of ABAM Shopping Center for

approximately twelve years.

An existing septic system was on

site and in operation when Respondent took possession of the

premises.

At that time,

there were no sewers in the area and

all of the landowners in the vicinity employed septic systems.

At some point during the Fall of 1970, Respondent’s septic

tank ruptured or ortherwise ceased to function properly.

9

—

237

---

—2—

Respondent thereupon engaged the services of a plumbing

contractor, James DiPietro, to alleviate the problem

(6-20-73 R.93).

Mr. Martin L.

Samuels,

an engineer, was

also retained by Respondent.

On the advice of Messrs.

Samuels and DiPietro,

the septic tank

was

sealed off and

plugged

(6-22-73 R.71)

and one Castlebury

was

employed

to

pump out the septic tank as it filled.

This pumping procedure

continued for a period of approximately 18 months at a frequency

which varied from one to five

times per week as the volume

of flow dictated

(6—20-73 R.97).

During this period, Respondent

was

attempting to obtain

permission for a sewer hook-up which would dispense with

the need for its septic system.

Respondent’s first procedure

was to contact the Cook County Board of Health because the

septic system was originally under their jurisdiction

(6-22-73 R.86).

Respondent designed the requisite package

plan and submitted same

to the Cook County Board of iIe~1th

and also

to the Metropolitan Sanitary District (6-22-73 R.88).

The

Metropolitan Sanitary District approved the plan in mid

1971

(6—22—73

R.88)

At this point the village of Northbrook advised Respondent

that the Village would not permit the planned discharge

into its storm sewer.

It

is alleged by Respondent’s witness,

Mr. Samuels, that the Village attempted to interfere with the

plan approved by the Metropolitan Sanitary District in order

to coerce annexation of R.~spondent’sproperty to the Village

(6-22-73 R.9l)

.

Regardless of the truth of this allegation,

further negotiations with the Village resulted in permission

for Respondent to connect to an existing sanitary sewer of

the Village, and such has been accomplished

(6—22—73 R.92)

The hearing on this cause extended to two full days.

The

Agency presented a detailed and exhaustive case in support

of its allegations.

Its evidence took the form of expert

testimony, water samples, dye tests and diagrams.

The Board is

convinced, particularly from the results of Agency-conducted

Fluorescein dye tests,

that Respondent’s malfunctioning septic

tank caused water pollution either alone or in combination with

contaminants from other sources, although neither the actual

magnitude nor frequency of such violations

is ascertainable

from the record.

In addition,

at least one instance of violation

was attested to by Respondent’s witness Mr.

Sainuels

(6-22-73 R.lll),

and counsel for Respondent in his closing

arguraenl. stated that

“we will admit at various

times there may have been some slight

discharge which we strongly attempted to prevent at all times”

(6—22—73

R.l66)

9

—

238

---

—3—

Further,

this Board

is satisfied,

from the record, that

Respondent has exercised good faith and diligence in

its attempt to alleviate the violative condition and that

the

delay

in achieving a sewer connection

is not attributable

to Respondent.

Respondent has expended approximately $40,000.00

in

order

to solve its problem and violations of the nature

found

herein

cannot recur

(6—22—73 R.165)

.

We feel that a

penalty under

the

fact situation found would

serve no purpose

and

none

shall be assessed.

This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the Board.

ORDER

IT

IS THE. ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that

Respondent, ABAM Building Corporation,

shall cease and desist

from the violations found herein and refrain from any operation

of the subject septic system without prior Agency approval.

Mr. Odell abstains.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, certify that the above Opinion and 0 der was

adopted by the Board on the

/~‘~

day of___________

1973,

by

a vote of

-.3

to

8

9

—

239

---