ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February 19, 1976

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 75—375

VILLAGE OF PEARL CITY, a municipal

)

corporation,

Respondent.

MS. DOROTHY J. HOWELL, Assistant 1~ttorneyGeneral, appeared on behalf

of Complainant;

MR. RICHARD ECKERT, appeared on behalf of 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 (Agency) on September 26,

1975 against Respondent Village of Pearl City (Pearl City),

located in Stephenson County, Illinois. The complaint alleges

violation of (1) Section 501 of an Act to Regulate the Operating

of a Public Water Supply (Public Water Supply Act), Illinois

Rev. Stat., Ch 111—1/2, as amended in 1973; (2) Rule 302 of the

Board’s Public Water Supply Regulations; (3) Section 18 of the

Environmental Protection Act (Act). The violation of the

Public Water Supply Act is alleged to have existed since

September 12, 1973, while violation of Rule 302 and Section 18

of the Act is alleged to have existed since December 21, 1974. All

of these violations are based on the same operative facts; operation

of a public water supply without a certified water supply operator.

A hearing was held on November 20, 1975 at which the parties

presented a Stipulation of Fact. Pearl City thereby admitted to

the following: A.) Ownership and operation of a public water supply

system, including two wells, an elevated tank, a distribution system, and

a chlorination and fluoridation mechanism for the water from one of the

two wells. B.) Not having employed a certified water supply operator

from at least September 12, 1973 until October 25, 1975.

20—115

---

—2—

Pearl City thus

admits

all facts necessary for a finding of

violation. The only remaining issue concerns the fashioning

of a remedy. On this issue one fact is prominent. Pearl

City is a village with a population of approximately 585. While

the failure to have a certified operator has jeopardized the

health and welfare of the people of Pearl City, the Board does

not find a substantial penalty to be appropriate in this case.

As Respondent’s attorney stated, “If the Pollution Control Board

levies a fine, this is simply going to delay the very essence of

what the pollution Control Board is after...” The Board recognizes

the financial burdens of small communities. However, the hiring

of a certified operator is a legal duty designed to protect the

health and welfare of those served by public water supply systems.

This is not an instance of a “technical” violation. It is a

two-year long violation which could have resulted in serious

injury to those who rely upon the adequacy and healthfulness of

their water supply.

The Public Water Supply Act provides for a minimum penalty

of $100 for a violation thereof. The Board finds this to be

adequate in this instance.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law.

ORDER

1. Respondent Village of Pearl City is hereby found to have

violated Section 501 of the Public Water Supply Act, Rule 302 of

the Public Water Supply Regulations, and Section 18 of the Environ-

mental Protection Act.

2. Respondent shall pay, as a penalty for these violations

a penalty of $100, payment to be made by certified check or money

order, within 35 days of the date of this Order to:

State of Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency

Fiscal Services Division

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois 62706

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted on the

/~‘1~t

day of February, 1976 by a vote of ~.D

Christan L. Moffe~,~lerk

Illinois Pollution ~ontrol Board

20—116