ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September
    18, 1975
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Complainant,
    )
    V.
    )
    PCB 74—422
    WHITE FENCE FARM,
    INC.,
    WHITE FENCE FARM CHICKEN,
    INC.,
    )
    and FILLUP,
    INC., aJ1 Illinois
    Corporations,
    Respondents.
    Ms. Mary Schlott, Assistant Attorney General, appeared for
    Complainant;
    Mr. Douglas P. Hutchison, Attorney, appeared for Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER CF THE BOARD
    (by Mr. Zeitlin):
    The Environmental Protection Agency,
    (Agency), filed an
    enforcement Complaint,
    on November 15,
    1974, naming as
    Respondents White Fence Farm,
    Inc.
    and White Fence Farm
    Chicken,
    Inc.
    An Amended Complaint was filed by the Agency
    on February
    6,
    1975,
    naming Fillup,
    Inc.,
    as an additional
    Respondent.
    Respondents’
    Motion to Dismiss, filed February
    4,
    1975,
    was denied in an Order of the Pollution Control Board
    (Board)
    on February 14,
    1975.
    A hearing was held
    in the matter on
    June
    27,
    1975,
    in Joliet.
    At that time,
    the parties entered
    a Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement
    (Stipulation),
    which forms the basis of this Opinion and Order.
    Respondent Fillup,
    Inc.,
    in 1962, acquired the assets
    of an Illinois corporation named White Fence Farm,
    Inc.,
    (a
    corporation other than Respondent White Fence Farm,
    Inc.)
    Respondent Fillup operates
    a restaurant business on the
    White Fence Farm site, on Joliet Road,
    in Will County,
    Illinois.
    That restaurant
    is operated under the name
    “White
    Fence Farm”.
    On the same site,
    Respondent White Fence Farm
    Chicken,
    Inc. operates a food preparation business.
    As
    a
    part of that business,
    cleaned chickens are cooked for
    delivery to retail sales outlets, along with salad products.
    Both Fillup’s restaurant activities and the food preparation
    activities of White Fence Farm Chicken,
    Inc.,
    result in
    discharges
    to an activated sludge sewage treatment plant and
    18 —516
    oxidation pond operated on the same site by Fillup,
    Inc.
    The treatment plant treats human wastes,
    food—associated by-
    products of the restaurant business,
    and wash water from the
    food preparation business operated by White Fence Farm
    Chicken,
    Inc.
    All costs of the treatment plant are paid by Respondent
    Fillup.
    Respondent White Fence Farm Chicken,
    Inc. pays
    nothing to Fillup,
    Inc.
    for the waste water treatment services
    provided.
    Respondent White Fence Farm,
    Inc.,
    incorporated
    in
    1968, has its offices at the White Fence Farm site, along
    with the offices of Fillup,
    Inc., and White Fence Farm
    Chicken,
    Inc.
    However, White Fence Farm,
    Inc.
    has conducted
    no profit-making business at that site during the past three
    years.
    The sewage treatment plant on the White Fence Farm site
    was constructed pursuant to a Sanitary Water Board permit
    issued in 1963.
    That permit lists the plant’s capacity as
    16,000 gallons per day.
    Operational reports submitted
    to
    the Agency by the plant operator show that flows through the
    treatment plant during 1974 ranged from 23,000 to 26,000
    gallons per day.
    The November 35,
    1974,
    complaint filed by the Environmental
    Protection Agency alleged violations of Section
    12(a)
    of the
    Environmental Protection Act
    (Act)
    and Rules 203(a),
    403,
    404(f) and 405 of the Board’s Water Pollution Regulations,
    from August 23, 1973 until the date of filing of the complaint.
    That complaint also alleged violation of Section
    12(b)
    of
    the Act and Rule 903(a) of the Water Pollution Regulations
    from July 30,
    1974, until November 15,
    1974.
    Ill.
    Rev.
    Stat.,
    Ch.lll 1/2,
    Sections 1,000 et.
    seq.
    (1973);
    PCB
    Regs.,
    Ch.
    3,
    Rules
    203(a),
    403,
    404(f),
    405,
    and 903(a).
    The Amended Complaint filed by the Agency on February
    6,
    1975,
    differs materially from the original complaint only insofar
    as
    it adds Respondent Fillup, which was not named in the
    original complaint.
    The Stipulation
    in this matter sets forth considerable
    information regarding the responsibility for the violations
    alleged.
    That material can be adequately summarized as
    follows:
    18—
    517
    —3—
    1)
    Respondents White Fence Farm,
    Inc. and White Fence
    Farm Chicken,
    Inc. bear no responsibility for the
    operation of the treatment plant on the White
    Fence Farm site;
    responsibility for any violations
    of the Act or the Board’s Regulations which may be
    found with regard to that treatment plant are the
    responsibility of Respondent Fillup.
    2)
    Respondent Fillup admits all of the violations
    alleged in the Agency’s Complaint and Amended
    Complaint.
    3)
    Those violations were of a serious nature.
    (This fact is borne out by the exhibits attached
    to the stipulation, consisting largely of Agency
    inspection reports.)
    4)
    The violations alleged took place after warnings
    from the ?~gency, further affixing responsibility
    for such violations.
    5)
    Respondent Fillup had and has the financial means
    to correct those
    violations.
    To correct those admitted violations,
    Respondent Fillup
    has commenced construction of a sewer line connecting
    the
    White Fence Farm site with the Village of Romeoville, which
    will allow adequate treatment of the effluent from the site.
    Although the cost of the sewer line is subject to recapture
    from future tap-ons. construction costs exceeding $265,000,
    including engineering and legal fees, are being paid by
    Respondent Fillup.
    restimony at the June
    27, 1975 hearing
    indicated that construction of that sewer main had commenced
    more than a month prior
    to the hearing, despite the fact
    that the annexation p2tition for the site had not yet been
    formally approved 3y the village of Romeoville.
    The parties agreed that Fillup,
    Inc., would post a
    personal bond,
    or an equivalent guarantee, equal
    to the
    $265,000 cost of construction of the new sewer line.
    Respondent
    Fillup also agreed to pay a penalty of
    $4,000 for its admitted
    violations.
    Fillup further agreed to cease operation of its
    sewage treatment pla~iton the White Fence Farm site within
    5
    months of Board approval of the Stipulation.
    18—
    518
    —4—
    The Board
    feels that the settlement submitted by the
    parties
    to this matter is acceptable.
    The penalty of $4,000
    will be adequate,
    despite
    the severity of the admitted
    violations,
    insofar as Respondent Fillup has agreed to a
    fully adequate plan to achieve compliance.
    Further,
    in
    light of Respondent Fillup’s admitted liability for those
    violations,
    the Board agrees that dismissal
    of Respondents
    White Fence Farm,
    Inc.
    and White Fence Farm Chicken,
    Inc.
    is proper.
    There remains only one matter
    for discussion.
    It was
    the agreement of
    the parties,
    in the Proposal for Settlement,
    that “to the extent required and permitted by
    law” acceptance
    of the stipulation and settlement in this matter by the
    Board would result in the grant of a Variance with respect
    to water pollution caused by the operation of the treatment
    plant on the White Fence Farm site, pending cessation of
    operation at that plant under the terms of the settlement,
    as described above.
    The parties agreed that any such Variance
    arising under the settlement would be for no longer than one
    year,
    subject to Bc~rdextension.
    The Board finds that such a Variance is neither
    “required” nor “permitted”
    in this instance.
    Nor is any
    such Variance now granted by the Board.
    Grant of a Variance
    as requested by the parties here would be in violation
    of the Variance requirements of the Act, and thus beyond
    the power of the Board.
    This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and
    conclusions of law of the Board
    in this matter.
    ORDER
    IT
    IS THE ORDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD THAT:
    1)
    Respondent Fillup,
    Inc.,
    is found to have violated
    Sections
    12(a)
    and 12(b)
    of the Environmental Protection
    Act,
    and Rules 203(a),
    403,
    404(f),
    405 and 903(a)
    of
    Chapter
    3:
    Water Poilution of the Pollution Control Board’s
    Rules and Regulations.
    18
    —
    519
    —5—
    2)
    Respondent Fillup shall pay, as a penalty for the
    above violations,
    the sum of $4,000, payment
    to be ~nade by
    certified check or money order,
    to:
    State of Illinois
    Environmental Protection Agency
    Fiscal Services Division
    2200 Churchill Road
    Springfield, Illinois 62706
    3)
    Respondent,
    Fillup,
    Inc., shall cease and desist
    operation of the sewage treatment plant on its White Fence
    Farm site no later than
    5 months after the entry of this
    Order.
    4)
    Respondent Fillup,
    Inc.
    shall post a personal bond
    or equivalent guarantee in the sum of $265,000 to assure
    completion of the construction contemplated in the accompanying
    Opinion,
    such bond to be posted within
    30 days of the date
    of this Order, at the above adress.
    5)
    Respondents White Fence Farm,
    Inc. and White Fence
    Farm Chicken,
    Inc.
    are dismissed, with prejudice.
    I,
    Christan L. I~’offett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify the above
    p1 ion and Order
    were adopted on the
    /5~’~
    day of
    ____________
    1975 by a
    vote ~
    C ristan L. Moff
    Cler
    Illinois Polluti
    ontrol Board
    18
    —
    520

    Back to top