ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January 24,

1980

ENVIRON~NTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Complainant,

V.

)

PCB

78~l02

DENNIS

M.

DOUGHERTY;

RIDGEWOOD,

)

INC.,

a

Delaware

corporation;

)

ARCADE

ENTERPRISES,

INC.,

a

)

Delaware

corporation,

)

Respondents.

MR.

STEPHEN

GROSSMARK,

ASSISTANT

ATTORNEY

GENERAL,

APPEARED

ON

BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT,

MR. DONALD J.

DOUGHERTY APPEARED PRO SE AND ON BEHALF OF THE

RESPONDENTS

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Dr. Satchell):

This matter comes before the Board upon a complaint filed

April

17,

1978 by the Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

naming

as Respondents Ridgewood,

Inc.

(Ridgewood)

and Arcade

Enterprises,

Inc.

(Arcade)

,

Delaware corporations authorized to

do business in Illinois, and Dennis

M.

Dougherty.

An amended

complaint was

filed on March

15,

1979 adding Respondents Robert

S. Tansey

(Tansey) and Donald J. Dougherty

(Dougherty)

The

complaint charges violations of §12(b)

of the Environmental Pro~

tection Act

(Act)

and Rules 951(a)

and 952(a)

of Chapter

3:

Water

Pollution, alleging construction and operation of an unpermitted

sewer extension in Caseyville Township,

St. Clair County.

A

hearing

was

held in Belleville on November 14,

1979,

No public

coiia~entwas received,

Donald

J. Dougherty appeared for himself and the other Re~

spondents

(R.

1,

127,

131).

Dougherty,

Tansey and Dennis M,

Dougherty are officers and/or directors

of

Arcade and Ridgewood.

There is

some confusion in the record as

to the exact relationships

(R.

6,

18,

20,

124,

128).

Together they are involved in the de~

velopment of a 187 acre tract adjacent to a

sewerage

service area

operated by the Caseyville Township Sanitation System

(Caseyville)

CR.

4),

Dennis M. Dougherty may have been the holder of record

title of six lots which were to be served by the sewer extension

CR.

8).

However,

there appears

to be no dispute

by

any

Respondent

as to responsibility for the construction which was undertaken

CR.

12,

Comp.

Ex,

1).

37—185

---

The

proposed

development

is

called

Ridgewood

Estates

and

will

involve

250

residential

building

lots

(Resp.

Ex,

3).

Re-

spondents planned to construct a sewage treatment plant

(STP)

for

the development and transfer it to Caseyville

CR.

8,

54),

Re-

spondents held two meetings with the Agency to discuss the devel-

opment.

The first was

in Springfield on December 28,

1976

CR,

64,

69,

96).

The second was in Collinsville on February 24,

1977

(R.

39, 48,

63,

62, 96,

99),

Neither of these meetings resulted in a

permit or application.

In the summer of 1977 Respondents built

six model homes,

They proposed to connect them to a new sewer

leading to a wet well.

They sought agreement from Caseyville to

periodically pump this wet well and transport the sewage to their

plant for treatment.

They appeared before the Caseyville Board

on August

4,

1977

(R.

72,

78,

97,

110,

112,

117,

123, 128,

130,

136).

On September

1, 1977 Agency inspectors found three manholes

and approximately 1000 feet of sewer nearly complete

CR.

28, 42,

57, 61;

Comp.

Ex.

2),

No permits were issued by the Agency for

the construction

(R,

69,

73,

123).

Agency approval was required

because the extension was to serve more than fifteen population

equivalents

(15 PE).

The individual Respondents

admit that they áonstructed the

sewers without the necessary permits

CR.

25, 131,

141; Comp.

Ex.

1).

Dennis M~Dougherty did not appear at the hearing although he

was served with notice to appear.

The Board finds all the Re-

spondents

in violation of the Act and Rules substantially as al-

leged in Count

I of the complaint.

On August 14,

1977 Respondents submitted an Agency permit

application to Caseyville

CR. 100,

108,

111, 118, 121,

123;

Resp.

Ex.

3).

Respondents contend that they believed that the con-

struction undertaken required only Caseyvill&s

approval and that

they had only to submit an Agency application to Caseyville

to be

forwarded to the Agency

CR,

111,

118),

They believed that con-

struction of the temporary system for the model homes could be

undertaken without Agency approval

CR.

70,

78).

Witnesses testi-

fied that they had advised Respondents of the permit requirement

prior

to the construction

(R,

48,

54,

57).

In support of their

position Respondents point out that Caseyville

inspected the work

while

it was

in progress.

However, Mr. Blaies, manager of the

Caseyville Township Sewage Treatment Facility,

testified that this

was only to be fair to Respondents to assure that the line, althougl

illegal,

was

well constructed and would not have to be dug up later

(R.

77)

3 7—186

---

Dougherty apparently contends that Caseyville approved the

temporary system dependent on delivery

of the sewer plant

to

it,

There

is a dialogue in the record suoqesting that Caseyville with-

drew its approval not because the temporary system was unpermitted

but after learning that

the

contract to build the plant was not

firm

CR,

79)

Even if this were established

it would be evidence

of Caseyvill&s

involvement

but

would not exculpate Respondents.

Subsequent to the

events

of September,

1977 an

Agency insoec—

tion revealed subsidence

around

one of the manholes

CR.

35,

45,

49),

Agency samples, which were not introduced into evidence, were in-

conclusive

CR.

37, 45,

49).

Accordin.g to Respondents the subsid-

ence has been filled

and

the sewer plugged and rendered inoperative.

None of the homes has been connected to the sewer

CR.

116)

.

Since

there is no evidence of operation of the sewers, Count

II of

the

complaint is dismissed.

The Board will order Respondents to cease and desist construc-

tion of the sewer in question until such time as the Agency issues

the necessary permits,

The

Board notes that Respondents have spent

$20,000

on construction of these sewers and have built six houses

which they cannot connect

CR.

142).

it

is not clear from the

record whether or not this construction could have been permitted.

In entering its Order the Board has considered §33 Cc)

of the Act.

Although Respondents have not actually caused any pollution, hap-

hazard development of sewer systems -poses a serious threat

to the

health and general welfare

(R.

131).

There is no question of

suitability of the site

to the area,

Although there is social and

economic value, it is reduced by

the

lack of a permit.

It

is

technically practicable and economically reasonable to require

developers to obtain permits prior to sewer construction.

Respond-

ents have raised no claims of financial hardship

CR.

9,

132),

Having considered the above,

the Board finds that a monetary penalty

of $1000

is necessary to aid enforcement

of the

Act.

This Opinion constitutes the Board~s findinqs of fact and

conclusions

of law in

this

matter.

ORDER

1.

Respondents Arcade EnterDrises,

iflO,,

Ridaewood,

Inc.

Dennis

M.

Dougherty, Donald J,

Dougherty and Robert

S.

Tansey have violated Section

12(h)

of

the

Environmental

Protection Act and Rule 951(a)

of Chapter

3:

Water

2.

Count II

is dismissed.

—4—

3.

Respondents shall cease

and

desist

construction

of

additional sewers and

operation of the

existing sewers

until such time as permits are issued by

the Agency.

4.

Respondents shall, by

certified

check

or

money

order

payable

to

the

State

of

Illinois,

pay a civil

penalty

of

$1000

which

is

to

be

sent

to:

IT

IS SO ORDERED

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

Fiscal

Services

Division

2200

Churchill

Road

Springfield,

Illinois

62706

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett,

Clerk

of

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

herq~y

certify

above

Opinion

and

Order

were

adopted on t~e~

day

of

,

1980

by

a

vote

of

Illinois

Pollution

-trol

Board