ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April 29, 1982

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Complainant,

)

v.

)

PCB 81—176

MARION E. CONLEY,

d/b/a/

WILLOW WOOD

)

MOBILE HOME PARK,

Respondent.

MS. CHRISTINE ZEMAN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON

BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT.

MR. MARION E. CONLEY APPEARED PRO SE.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J.D, Dunielle):

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed

a complaint in this matter on November 5, 1981 alleging that for

over six years Marion E. Conley has improperly operated his

sewage treatment plant (STP) in violation of Rules 501(c), 601(a),,

901 and 1201 of Chapter 3: Water Pollution, and Sections 12(a)

and (f) of the Act. Hearing was held on February 26, 1982 at

which only the parties appeared. The Agency filed an amended

complaint and closing brief on March 12, 1982.

Conley owns and operates Willow Wood Mobile Home Park

located in Caseyville, St. Clair County, and its associated

STP. The STP consists of a comminuter, an extended aeration

plant, a tertiary settling lagoon basin, a 1,000 gallon dosing

tank, an intermittent sand filter and an effluent chlorination

facility. The average design capacity is 140 population equiva-

lents and discharge is to Harding Ditch upstream from the

Mississippi River.

The

STP is operated under NPDES Permit No.

1L0042218, effective May 26, 1976, and which expired on July

1, 1980,

On January 4, 1982 the Agency filed a request for admission

of fact and genuineness of documents to which Conley never

responded. Therefore, under Procedural Rule 314(c) each of the

matters requested is deemed admitted. While

Conley stated at

hearing that “I donut say that because I didn~t file a protest

that I am guiltyu of all that was alleged (R.

8—10),

he also

46—199

---

—2—

£ailed to present any evidence at hearing contrary to the alleg-

ations. His testimony is relevant only in mitigation. Further,

each of the admissions is supported by competent evidence in the

record. The admissions and supporting evidence are summarized

below (numbering is in accordance with the request for admission);

12. Intermittently from March 1976 through at least

November, 1981, Conley allowed the polishing

pond to contain grasses and be covered with

duckweed (See also R. 30, 48, 94—95, 98—99, and

Exs, 2, 19, 21 and 25),

13. During the same period the extended aeration

plant, dosing tank, intermittent sand filters,

and chlorinator were intermittently inoperable

(See also R. 23—26, 35, 42, 47—50, 57, 59—61,

89—94 and Exs, 2, 18, 20 and 22—23),

18. Conley failed to sample and submit monthly

discharge monitoring reports (DMR~s) to the

Agency as required in his permit for several

months from May, 1976 to June, 1980 (See

also R. 27 and 78-81).

19, As of November 5, 1981, Conley had failed to

apply for reissuance of his NPDES permit which

expired July 1, 1980 (See also R. 78).

24, From September 1, 1974 to at least November 5,

1981, Conley operated the STP without the

supervision of a Class 4 or higher operator as

required for that STP (See also R. 18, 27, 81—88,

and 105),

Based upon these facts, the Board finds that from March,

1976 and continuing to the filing of the complaint, Conley

intermittently failed to provide optimum operation and main-

tenance of the STP in violation of Rules 601(a) and 901 of

Chapter 3 and Sections 12(a) and (f) of the Act.

The Board also finds that Conley failed to monitor, sample,

record and report as required by his 1’IPDES permit during the

dates alleged in violation of Rules 501(c) and 901 of Chapter 3

and Sections 12(a) and (f) of the Act,

The Board further finds that from July 1, 1980 until the

filing of the complaint Conley has allowed point discharges

from the STP without a valid NPDES permit in violation of Rule

901 of Chapter 3 and Sections 12(a) and (f) of the Act.

Finally, the Board finds that from September 1, 1974 and

continuing until the date of filing of this complaint, Conl~

44—200

---

has caused or allowed the operation of his STP without the

direct and

active supervision of an operator certified as Class

4 or higher

in violation of Rule 1201 of Chapter 3 and Section

12(a) of the Act.

All

that remains, then, is to determine what

penalty, if

any, is

appropriate in this case, There is no question that

the location

of the site is suitable and that the system does

have social

and economic value when properly operated. There

is, however, some question as to the degree of injury

and the

technical

and economic reasonableness of compliance.

Unfortunately, the evidence of environmental harm is

rather

sparse. To a large extent, that is as a result of

conley~s

failure to provide DMR~s. The only effluent data

presented

shows a pH of 7,1, five—day biochemical oxygen

demand

of 1 mg/i, and suspended solids of 40 mg/i

(Ex. 2K),

Thus, only

the suspended solids were in violation since the

permitted

level for them was 12 mg/I, There is also

some

testimony

as to septic odors (See Ex. 2A)

and that bypassing of

the sand filter

occurred (R. 35),

but there is no evidence of

degradation of

Harding Ditch,

nor even

any

testimony regarding any

uses of

that stream. However, given the

operational shortcomings

of the

STP the Board has found, the Board can presume that

some

environmental harm occurred,

Further, those operational shortcomings could have been

remedied in a technically practicable and economically

reasonable

manner. While Conley contended at hearing that

“the money

wasn~t

there

in the first place” and that he had “the facts and

figures

to

prove that it wasn’t” (R. 128), he did not present those facts

and figures. Further, on several occasions Conley agreed to

make

necessary repairs (See Exs, 2D and 12B). Given those

agreements,

it is

somewhat inconsistent for him to contend that

such repairs

could not be made, especially when they consist of such

actions as

raking

the sand filter and removing leaves and weeds,

The problem of duckweed covering the polishing pond serves

as a good example of the crux of this case, Kenneth Hammer, an

Agency Environmental Protection Specialist, testified that duck-

weed could be effectively removed from a polishing pond by

skimming if it is done at the proper time of the year and through

the use of readily available chemicals (R. 121—122), On the

other hand Con~leystated that “skimming,. .is an impossible job,”

hut he may not have done it at a proper time, Further, he tried

chemicals, but he apparently used the wrong ones since he thought

the duckweed was algae (R. 109), He stated, “1 do the best I

can”

(R. 120), However, he works other jobs six days a week, and. on

the seventh day “any spare time” is spent on the mobile home park

and the STP (R 120), Thus, STP maintenance suffers, especially

since he

is not a certified operator, He is now studying

to take

a

certification test (R. 105—106), has applied

for an NPDES permit

46—201

---

—4—

(R. 100—101

and 106—107),

and

has hired someone to routinely keep

down the weeds CR. 109), but all these actions have been too long

in coming. As the Agency points out in its closing brief,

Mr. Conley “has repeatedly

and

consistently cut corners in the

supervision and maintenance of his”

STP.

Be apparently needs

further incentive to comply with the State regulations.

The

Board will

impose

a penalty of $1,000.

The

Board

notes that some of these violations have

spanned

seven years. While Conley is certainly at fault, the Agency must

bear

some

responsibility for allowing the violations to continue

for so long. The Agency should have realized several years

earlier that Conley was not going to make good on his promises

and

would have better fulfilled its environmental protection role by

filing this case much earlier. The Board further notes that on

wril 14, 1982 the Agency filed a motion to

exclude

certain facts

allegedly included in Conley’s

“memorandum”

of April 6, 1982.

Given that no such memorandum was filed with the Board,

that

motion is moot.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’ s findings of fact and

ORDER

1. Marion E. Conley

has

violated Rules 501Cc), 6OlCa),

901 and 1201 of chapter 3: Water Pollution,

and

Sections l2Ca) and Cf) of the

Act.

2. Within 45 days of the date of this Order Mr. Conley

shall, by certified check or money order payable

to the State of Illinois,

pay

a penalty in the

amount

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

3. Mr. Conley shall expeditiously pursue in NPDES

permit for the STP and the attainment of proper

certification for operation of the STP.

4.

Within

45

days of the date of this Order

Mr.

Conley

shall

otherwise cease and desist from the violations

found

in this matter.

IT IS SO

ORDERED.

46—202

---

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

Control Board, hereby ceçtify that the above Opinion and Order

were adopted on the~~9~ day ~

1982 by

avoteof ~‘-O

.

Christan L. Moffet’

,

lerk

Illinois Pollution trol Board

46—203