ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January

6,

1977

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 76—14

H.W.

BUECKER,

Respondent.

MESSRS. JOHN VAN VRANKEN and RUSSELL EGGERT, Assistant Attorneys

General, appeared for the Complainant;

MR. EDWARD COLEMAN, appeared for the Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Dumelle):

This matter comes before the Board on

a Complaint filed by

the Environmental Protection Agency against Mr.

H.W. Buecker on

January

12,

1976.

The Complaint is comprised of three Counts and

pertains

to Mr. Buecker’s ownership and operation of the Loami

Lake Estates Mobile Home Court

(Park)

located

in the Village of

Loami, Sangamon County,

Illinois.

Count

I

alleges the violation

of conditions of the Aqency permit issued for the construction and

operation of sewage treatment facilities for the Park in violation

of Section 12(b)

of the 2~ct.

Count II alleges operation of the

sewage treatment facility without a certified operator in violation

of Water Regulation

1201 and Section

12(a)

of the Act.

Count III

alleges

that

the

facility

was

not

constructed

and

operated

so

as

to

mInim

ZO

vi 0Th

1ions

of

applicable

standards

dun

nc~ mdi

ii

tenance

or

equipment

failure contingencies and that this caused sewaqe

overflows,

t:hus

in violation of Water Requlations 601(a)

and 602(b)

and

Section

12(a)

of

the

Act.

The

Aqency

served

upon

Respondent

Buecker

its

Request

for

Admissions

of

Fact

on

January

26,

1976

(Complainant’s

Exhibit

No.

2).

The

Board

notes

that

the

Request

was

not

drafted

so

as

to

inform

Respondent

Buecker

of

the

consequences

of

failure

to

respond.

However, no response was qiven with the twenty day period

and the Board will nevertheless consider the presented facts

as

admitted.

The testimony elicited at

the

March

25,

1976

hearing

verifies

the

fact

that

these violations did occur

(R.

13,

15,

45,

46,

56,

58,

59,

83).

24

—

523

---

It

is

~lucr

iricr~, that the evidence presented by Mr.

Buecker

rclatcd

t~

the

~ctors

of

mitigation

as

described

in Section

33

of

the

Act

~r

~)

ratner

than

to

the

issue

of

whether the viola

one

occ~rred.

Is

to

the

violation

of

permit

conditions

(Count I)

M’~

Bu~cker

s~ic

that

he

intended

to

comply with all of

the condi—

t~ion5but tne

~r~a

ci

site

had

a

high

water

table which made it

Qnsuitab?e

~R

L~,

8)

mew plies were then drawn up for an

a ternate sate

b~

c. Agency was not contacted

(R.

83)

These

ne~clans cinta~redone very significant change.

In order to

all ~viate th~qrouni water problem,

the bottom of

the lagoon was

cc

structed at

ci

I

lower depth than planned and the dike elevation

were raised

~Ihls cuanqe necessitated the addition of a sewage

li~t

statIon

(4

4

)

~hich was not provided for

in the permit.

Further,

thu chfo~:nafron facilities specified

in the permit were

no~instal~edas reuui~ed

Mr. Buecker reports that

chlorination

problems existed prior

to March 20,

1976

(B,

79).

The implication

is

that

ttesc

crblems

were caused by

a

failure to follow the

pe

it

cindL

~un~

tar

~loi-nation.

However, there

is no doubt

tha~tIe ero an

rn

liu~ed in Count

Iii

(overflows)

were caused

by

a mail nctloi ‘n

t e

lift

station

(R.

59).

Together with the

fact

that

~c cc

zfied operator was

in charge of the plant these

facts point

~o o

~onclusaon:

that Mr. Buecker and Mr. Auby

(the

consult rg encrcei

had substituted their judgment and their

expertise for that cI

~he Agency.

More than being

a technical

vi

sti

r

~

a d Regulations the conduct of Mr. Ruecker has

not or y

tI

e

f~

e integrify of the permit system,

but has also

pin

ihe

us

~+

a

c

clear example of why that permit system must

be protected

Tic toa d

is concerned with the fact that the loc~

of the Isac

sg

a

~i

tf~tfacilities and the chlorine contact c

were charged witfo

c

suiting with the Agency,

The purpose of the

pernit

sI’stt~r is t~irsure that equinment and facilities installed

wi1l not

i~Sul5

IL

ic

anions

of the Act and Board Regulations.

Such relocations could alter

the operation of the facility and

its reiationsip

wIti-

the environment such as to render the original

design iradegua~eto prevent pollution.

It is the Aqencyvs

expertisc

in revlesing the cermit application, which must be used

to prevent such situations,

The

raw

s ~w-

c,c

v

nil

ows

caused

by

i

he

mu

1 innet ion i nq

of

L~

cw

p

s

Lion

were

the

resulf of improper design

of

the

cnn

~

,

(p, (

4)

w ~ich

ml qht

have

been

correct

ed

in

advance

had

thc

p~riritting

pro~ess

been

followed.

There has been no

showing

that

it

would

have

been

unreasonable 1or Mr.

Buecker

to

have

informed

tie

Agency

of

his

ground water problems and subse—

guent

redesign

of

the

facility.

On

the

other

iand,

there

is

no

issue as

to the suitability

of

the

plart

to

the

a-ca

in

which

it

is located.

Nor

is there

any

evidence

of

sejere

adverse

environmental

impact.

However,

24

—

524

---

—3—

it

is

the

character

of

this

completely

unnecessary

interference

with

the

protection

of

the

environment

which

outweighs

the

excuses

submitted by Mr. Buecker and

Mr.

Auby.

The

Board

therefore

finds

that a substantial penalty is necessary

in this case to aid in the

enforcement of

the Act and to

fulfil.l its purpose

“to assure that

adverse effects upon the environment are fully considered and borne

by those who cause them”.

Mr.

Buecker

has

already

paid,

a

price

for

his

violations

in

the amount of time and money spent

on

makeshift

corrections

and

devices at his facility.

The fact that he is an experienced plumber

and contractor

shows

not

that

he should be excused for these

violations,

but

that

he

should

have

been familiar with permit

r,rocedures.

At

the

hearing,

the

Agency

elicited

the

gross

profits

from

Mr.

Buecker’s

mobile

home

park

for

1973

($11,839.00)

and

1974

($12,629.00)

(R.

12).

The Board finds

this information

of

some

help

in

determining

the

appropriate

amount

of

a

penalty

to

bE

imposed.

While no figures concerning

Mr.

Buecker’s

income

from

his contracting business were submitted by the Respondent, the Board

finds that penalties

of $500.00 for the violations

in Count

I,

$200.00 for the

violation

in

Count

II,

and

$100.00

for

the

violationE

in Count III are the minimum

necessary

under

the particular

facts

of this case.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of

fact and

conclusions of law.

Mr. Young abstained.

ORDER

1.

The Board hereby finds Respondent H.W. Buecker to have violated

the

permit

conditions

and

therefore

Section

12(b)

of

the

Act

as

alleged

in

Count

I; Water Regulation

1201

and

Section

12(a)

of

the

Act

as

alleged

in Count II; and Water Regulations

601(a),

602(b)

and

Section

12(a)

of

the

Act

as

alleged

in

Count

III.

2.

Respondent:

JJ.W.

!~uecker shall

pay

to

the

SLat..u

ol

IlLinois:

as

a

penalty

for

the

aforesaid

violations

in

Count

I

the

sum

of

$500.00,

as

a

penalty

for

the

aforesaid

violations

in

Count

II

the

sum

of

$200.00,

as

a penalty for the aforesaid

violations

in Count

III

the

sum

of $100.00.

Payment shall be

made by certified check or money order within

35

days

of

the

date of this Order to:

State of Illinois

Fiscal Services Division

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

2200

Churchill

Road

Springfield, Illinois 62706

24

—

525

---

3

e~poa3entF ~

Eu cxci ~hjll cease and desist the aforesaid

v~o

~

~

~Lr

~n

i.

~~OLt~

Clcrk of

the Illinois Pollution Control

Board

~rcby

cc

afy tie above Opinion and Order were adopted on the

~

Cay o

5anu~rv 1977 by

a vote of

Illinois Pollution

trol Board

24

—

526