ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August 29, 1972

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

V.

)

#72—165

GREAT STATES THEATRES, INC. et al.

Mr. Herman R. Tavins, Assistant Attorney General, for the

Environmental Protection Agency

Mr. Arthur A. Goldberg, for Great States Theatres, Inc. et al.

Opinion & Order of the Board (by Mr. Currie)

This

case first came to our attention when Great States

filed a variance petition asking to be allowed to continue

operating a building in Aurora while working to eliminate

a direct connection between its toilet fixtures and the Fox

River. The 90-day period in which we must decide variance

cases having nearly expired, we denied the petition without

prejudice because it did not contain allegations sufficient

to justify

the

time requested to correct the problem, leaving

the issues raised to be litigated by way of defense to

a

pending enforcement complaint on which hearings were to be

held. ABC Great States, Inc. v. EPA, #72-39 (May 3, 1972)

The enforcement hearing has since been held, and that case

is ready for decision.

The parties have stipulated to the facts. Acting upon

a citizen complaint, the Agency called the problem to the

attention of Great States in August of 1971. The company

had purchased the property some time after it was built

and had no knowledge of the discharge until notified by the

Agency. Great States then spent some $26,000 in tearing

up the adjacent property first to trace the sewers, of which

no map was available, and then to construct facilities in-

cluding a lift station to introduce the~asteinto a municipal

sewer where it belonged. Because Great States no longer

owned the property on which this work was done, it was

necessary to acquire easements; this business was complicated

by the fact that the property was held in trust.

The discharge has now been eliminated; the remaining

question for us is whether or not to impose a money penalty.

There is no doubt the discharge violated applicable effluent

standards. But we think no purpose would be served by

5

—

285

---

—2—

inflicting penalties here. Great States had no reason

to suspect such an illegal discharge, and we are not pre-

pared to hold that everyone who buys property must look for

bizarre drainage situations under pain of money penalties.

While we noted in passing on the variance petition that

the time in question seemed somewhat long for connecting one

building to a sewer, the facts as brought out in the

stipulation convince us Great States acted with due diligence

to correct a rather refractory problem once it was called to

the company’s notice. The case is therefore declared closed

upon a finding of violation, and no affirmative order is

necessary.

This case suggests the disturbing possibility that other

older buildings may be discharging directly to waterways,

and we urge the Agency to investigate.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board,

certify that the Board a$opted the above Opinion & Order

of the Board this

~

‘

day of August, 1972, by a vote

of ~‘-G

2A~d