ENVIRONME
TAI
PROTECTION
AGENCY
GOFFREY
H~GHES, d
b/a
Goffrel
Hughes
Rental,
Respondemm
Lelbert Haschemeye
,
As~isant Attormm
Generat
rr behalf uf
Crmpa:~ art
lohn C
C. ibert, Attorney for Respondent
The lespondent owns and operates a rental busine$L as
Goffrey
ughes ir Crab Orchard Estatu~ir Will amson
oun~y
Illinoir
Crab Orchard Estates corsists of va rous s~~a wooder
dwell nes
trailers,
anr miscellaneous building~intendea
f
x
occupau~ b! more than 15 peop ~
l~ the condu~tof t
-
re t&
b~s~nes~ Res~o’~det
~s
an~ ~uer~es
sea’- ge
t~eaur~ ÷
facili~j
fa ility
consistint of
a
common
sept~c
LanK
si-ster
:hi-
facility
is
located
proxiirate
to
ard
disci-arjes
ir~
a
irtermittert
unnamed
streair
tributar
to
Cr0b
r~hard
~ree
a/k
a Crab Orchard Lakc
wh
c~.
ir tu~n
s
rib tary
ti-
n
Aprii
12
1974
tue
Environ’rentai
1o
cctior
Agenc
Agercy) filed a CotD’8i~twcich Included a lone list ~f alieged
vioi-ation~under cad
of two Counts
I ana
I
‘uur
1 ~steg
ulieged
violataons
of
ti-c
Environirenta
Protectior
Act
Act
ar~~
rue
Rule~ aid
Regulutions
o~ rk
Illinois
SaIJi~dy
Wa~e:
bOc,~
~2E~l4
fron’
on
or
before
July
19
0
through
Apri
15
l92
Count
II
listed
alleged
violations
of
the
Act
and
t~e I
l~noi
~ate~
Polution
Regulations
Chapter
3
(Chapter
3
fron’
April
16
1972,
t~rough
the
date
of
filing
this
Complaint~
From
July
1,
1970
through
April
15,
192
including
certain
specified
dates
in
October
1970
and
July
August,
and
September
1971
Respondent
allegedly
violated
Sections
12
a)
and
Cd)
of
the
Act
and
Rules
L03(a),
Ct)
c’
and
(d
and
L08~10(b)(l),
(2
and
(3)
of SWB~14~Section 12 a~of the
Act
was allegedly violated
in that Respondent caused or allowed septic contaminants to be
discHarged into an intermittent, unnamed tributary to Crab Orchard
Creek
(tributary)
causing water pollution and violated regulations
of
the Boards
Such discharges created a water pollution hazard in
violation of Section l2(d
of the Act~ Respondent was alleged to
have discharged settleable solids or sludge deposits into the
—2—
tributary
in
violation of 1.03(a)
of
SWB-14.
Respondent was
charged to have
violated
1.03(b)
of
SWB-14
by
depositing
septic
contaminants
into
the
same
unnamed
tributary.
Harmful
or
toxic
septic
discharges
and
septic
discharges
creating
a
nuisance
were
deposited
by
Respondent
in
violation
of
1,03(c)
and
(d)
of
SWB—14,
Respondent
allegedly
failed
to
remove
settleable
solids,
failed
to
remove
color,
odor,
and
turbidity
to
below
obvious
levels, and
failed
to
remove
certain
contaminants
at
its
sewage
treatment
facility,
all
in
violation
of
Rule
1.08—10(b)
(1),
(2),
and
(3)
of
SWB—14,
COUNT
11
From
April
16,
1972,
through
April
12,
1974
—
including
certain named
dates
in
September
and
October,
1972,
and
August,
1973
—
Respondent allegedly violated Sections 12(a),
(b),
and
(d)
of
the
Act and Rules
203(a),
(d),
(g), and
(f)
and Rules 402, 403,
404(a),
405,
501,
903(a), and 1002(a) of Chapter
3.
Section 12(a)
of
the
Act
was
allegedly
violated
in
that Respondent caused or allowed
contaminants
to
be
discharged
into
an
intermittent,
unnamed
tributary~
to
Crab
Orchard
Creek
causing
water
pollution
and
violat-
ing
the
Board
regulations
in
Chapter
3,
as
indicated
below.
Respondent
allegedly
operated
its
sewage
treatment
facility
without
a
permit
in
violation
of
Section
12(b)
of
the
Act.
Discharging
into
the unnamed tributary created a water pollution hazard in
violation
of
Section 12(d)
of the Act.
Respondent was said to have violated
Rules 203(a) and 402 of Chapter 3 by allowing various contaminants,
including unnatural sludge and bottom deposits,
to be present in
the
tributary.
Rules 203(d)
and 402 were violated because
Respondent
allowed dissolved oxygen
in
the unnamed tributary
to fall
below 5.0 mg/l.
Fecal coliforms exceeded 400/100 ml
over
a
30—day
period in the tributary,
in violation of 203(g)
of Chapter
3.
High
coliform counts also violated Rule 405.
Excessive ammonia concentra-
tion in
the unnamed tributary violated Rule 203(f) of Chapter
3.
Rule
403
was
violated
in
that
Respondent
operated
its
sewage
treatment
facility
so as to discharge effluents containing obvious
color,
odor,
turbidity,
and
other
contaminants.
The
BOD levels
in
sewage waste exceeded 30 mg/i in violation of Rule 404(a) of
Chapter
3,
Failure of Respondent to provide operating reports
required of all persons discharging effluents into
the
unnamed
tributary violated Rule 501(a) of Chapter
3.
Operating the treat-
ment facility without a permit violated Rule 903(a)
of Chapter
3.
A violation of Rule 1002(a) was premised on a failure to file a
project completion schedule
‘for the sewage treatment facility.
Answers to the Complaint were received by the Board on May
1,
1974.
in
these
Answers
the
Respondent
denied
the
allegations
in paragraphs
5 through 14 of Count I and in paragraphs
5 through
17
in
Count
II.
13
—
134
—3—
A hearing concerning this case was held on May 29,
1974,
in
Marion,
Illinois.
During this hearing the Complainant and
Respondent submitted Joint Exhibit No,
1, which included Reasons
for Settlement,
a Fact Stipulation, and Proposed Orders.
Agency
Exhibit No.
2 was also submitted, which is an application for a
permit to construct new sewage treatment facilities
(Permit #1970—
GA-927 issued December 17,
1970)
and detailed specifications
(prepared by R.A. Nack and Associates
-
Engineers)
of the pollution
control equipment that Mr. Hughes had practically completed install-
ing by the date of the hearing ~(R. 8,
9).
No persons other than the
parties in this case attended the hearing.
The Reasons For Settlement indicate that the parties believe
(a)
the Fact Situation and Proposed Order
(Joint Exhibit No.
1)
represents a fair and expeditious solution to
a pollution problem
that dates back to at least 1969 and
(b)
the proposed penalty of
$750.00 to be a fair penalty when balancing the delay in the
installation of the improved treatment facilities with the age
(70 years)
of the Respondent and
his reliance
on rental property
as a source of income.
The Fact Stipulation includes Agency Group Exhibit
i
(incor-
porated
by
reference), which consists of
25 documents
(48
pages)
from 1960 to 1973 that report observations
of Agency investigations,
laboratory analyses of effluent from the subject facility and
receiving stream indicating pollution, photographs and drawings
of
the subject property, and correspondence between the Agency,
Mr. Hughes, and other interested parties.
If a full
hearing
had
been held in
this matter, Mr. Hughes would have testified that the
delay in the installation of the treatment facilities was due
in
part to his hope of the formation of a sewage district to construct
and operate an area-wide sewage treatment facility,
as described
in Respondent~sExhibit
1 (incorporated
by
reference), being an
affidavit by Mr. Archie Griffin, an officer of the Lakeside Water
District in 1970.
Mr.
Hughes would have also testified that the
delay in the installation of treatment facilities was due in part
to
the difficulty of obtaining competent contractors to
do
the work,
as described in Respondent~sExhibit 2
(incorporated by reference)
being a letter from Mr. C.A, Skelcher.
On or about April
15,
1974,
work commenced on treatment facilities,
Said treatment facilities
are described more particularly
in Respondent~sExhibit
3,
being
Permit
#l970-GA-927, issued to the Respondent by the Agency on
December 17,
1970.
Information in Agency Group Exhibit
1 adequately documents
that Respondent~sfacility has caused water pollution since
at
least 1971 and that Mr. Hughes has been slow in correcting this
situation.
However, there are mitigating circumstances which are
listed in the Fact Stipulation.
Also the new sewage treatment
facility, which was nearly completely installed by the date of the
hearing and will be in full operation in June,
1974
(R.
9,
10)
will control the pollution and solve this problem. On the basis of
the information presented,
the Board accepts the proposed settle—
13
—
135
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of
law
of
the
Board.
I.
Respondent, Goffrey Hughes, d/b/a Goffrey Hughes Rental,
shall’ cease and desist the violations as alleged by installing and
properly operating the new sewage treatment facilities described in
Agency Exhibit No.
2.
Said facilities are to be completed and in
full
operation
on
or
before
July
1,
1974.
2.
Respondent, Goffrey Hughes, d/b/a Goffrey Hughes Rental,
shall: pay to the State of Illinois the sum of $750.00 within thirty~
five
(35) ,days from the date of this Order..
Penalty payment by
certified check or money order, payable to the State of Illinois,
shall be made to Fiscal Services Division, Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency,
2200 churchill Road, Springfield,
Illinois
62706.
3.
Respondent, Goffrey Hughes, d/b/a Goffray Hughes RentAl,
shall submit monthly reports to the Agency as required by Rule 501
of Chapter
3, Water Pollution Regulations of Illinois.
4.
Respondent, Goffrey Hughes, d/b/a Goffrey Hughes Rental,
shall provide
a properly certified treatment plant operator as
soon as possible,
i.n accordance with Part XII of Chapter
3, Water
Pollution Regulations
‘of Illinois;
or no later than September 15,
1974,
engage
a certified treatmen~plant operator as a conunltant
to insure that Respondent~ssewage treatment facility is •upmrated
properly and meets established standards.
If a consultant is used,
Respondent shall report the consultant~sname and address to the
Agency.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois’ Pollution Control
~,oard,~
the above,O~i~:naO:drwas~o:t:d
13
—
136