ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November 14, 1974

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

V.

PCB 74—260

PETEY’S

II,

INC.,

an Illinois corporation,

Respondent.

Mr. John S. O’Brien, attorney for Complainant.

Mr. Ollie

E.

Stone, attorney for Respondent.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Dr. Odell)

On July

9,

1974,

the Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

filed a Complaint against Peter Kattos.

An Amended

Complaint was filed with the Pollution Control Board

(Board)

on August 14,

1974, against Petey’s

II,

Inc. and alleged

that Respondent

from July

1,

1974,

until August 14,

1974,

operated its restaurant

at 159th Street and Route

45, south

of Orland Park,

Illinois, without an operating permit for

its septic tank and seepage field system.

Such activity

allegedly violated Rule 903(a)

and 903(b) of the Water

Pollution Regulations

(Chapter Three)

and therefore was in

violation of Section 12(b)

of the Environmental Protection

Act

(Act)

A hearing was held in Orland Park,

Illinois on October

9,

1974.

Respondent admitted the violations set out in the

Complaint

CR.

3).

The hearing testimony went to the issue of

mitigation.

The Respondent has been operating the restaurant

since October, 1972

(R.

6).

The evidence established that

Respondent did not realize that he was

in violation of the

Act and Chapter Three until

late July,

1974

(R.

29,

30).

Notice of the alleged violations was delayed, because the

first Complaint named the incorrect party as the Respondent.

The Amended Complaint cured this defect.

Once the Respondent

became aware of the need for a permit,

he made every effort

to comply

(R.

6,

7).

Respondent experienced some delay in

filing its permit application, because of confusion on the

part of Respondent’s agents concerning the processing pro-

cedure

(R.

8).

After these difficulties were overcome, a

permit application was submitted on October 16, 1974,

one week

after the date of the hearing.

On October 22,

1974,

a copy

of the permit issued to the Respondent by the Agency was filed

with the Board.

We find that the Respondent has violated Section 12(b)

of the Act and Rules

903 (a)

and 903(c) (3)

of Chapter Three.

14

—421

---

—2—

Respondent has shown good faith in its efforts to comply

with the law once a violation was realized.

While

Respondent~sbehavior cannot be completely excused becaus~

the Act is malum prohibitum,

the circumstances surroundinq

the permit violation require that only

a nominal penalty bu

imposed.

A technical permit violation occurred, but

it

was

not argued that there was any physical pollution.

This constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that

Respondent pay a penalty of $50.00 for its violations of the

Act and Regulations established in this Opinion.

Payment

shall be by certified check or money order payable to the

State of Illinois, Fiscal Services Division, Environmental

Protection Agency,

2200 Churchill Road,

Springfield, Illinois

62706.

Payment shall be made within

35 days of the adoption

of this Order.

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

Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was

adopted on the

(L~’~day

of

______________,

1974, by

a vote of

£

to N

~stanL~t

14

—