ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    December 20, 1990
    HERMAN PRESCOTT,
    )
    )
    Complainant,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 90—187
    (Enforcement)
    THE CITY OF SYCAMORE, ILLINOIS,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. C. Marlin):
    This matter is before the Board on a Motion to Dismiss
    Petition as Frivolous filed by Respondent City of Sycamore
    (“Sycamore”) on November 29, 1990. The Complainant, Herman W.
    Prescott (“Prescott”) filed a response on December 19, 1990.
    Because of the result reached today, the Board will not
    specifically address the response. After consideration of the
    motion to dismiss, the Board denies it.
    The motion raises several grounds as to why the complaint
    should be dismissed as frivolous. The first is that one of the
    sections claimed to be violated in this water enforcement case,
    Section 654.403 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    regulations, involves secondary maximum contaminant levels for
    finished water and is not an enforceable tolerance limit. We
    agree. Section 604.401(b) of Board regulations states that the
    Agency may set levels and promulgate procedures for chlorination.
    35 Ill. Adm. Code 604.401(b). The Agency requires a minimum free
    chlorine residual of 0.2 mg/L or a minimum combined residual of 0.5
    ing/L be maintained in all active parts of the distribution system
    at all times. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 653.604. The Board agrees,
    however, that the Complainant’s reliance on Section 654.403 as an
    enforceable standard for residual chlorine is misplaced. Section
    654.403 lists secondary maximum contaminant levels for finished
    water. It is neither an enforceable provision of the Illinois
    Environmental Protection Act nor an enforceable Board regulation.
    Therefore it is not the proper subject of an enforcement action.
    As Respondent admits, however, Prescott correctly sites the
    enforceable standard, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 654.403, in his complaint.
    We find therefore no need to dismiss the provisions of Prescott’s
    complaint relating to residual chlorine just because Complainant
    includes an additional, non-enforceable standard.
    Sycamore’s second ground for dismissal of Prescott’s
    allegations concerning residual chlorine is that the test results
    Prescott includes are “undocumented and unfounded.” Sycamore
    contends its test results show compliance with the applicable
    standards. Sycamore attaches these test results as an exhibit.
    117—153
    As the above shows, the facts regarding the test results and the
    actual residual levels are controverted. The Board finds this to
    be an insufficient reason to find the complaint frivolous.
    Sycamore raises a third reason as to why the complaint should
    be dismissed. Prescott’s complaint alleges that the finished water
    has an odor and is frequently rusty. These allegations are
    deficient, Sycamore argues, because Prescott neither appends test
    results nor does Prescott cite a section of the Act which has been
    violated. Sycamore attaches to its motion tests results for
    manganese and iron concentrations which show that it is in
    compliance.
    Sycamore is technically correct that the Complainant has not
    cited any applicable Board rule or section of the Act regarding
    manganese and iron concentrations which Sycamore is claimed to have
    violated. We are reluctant, however, to so narrowly construe
    Prescott’s complaint as to require dismissal. Rather, we believe
    the claim is sufficiently stated so as to apprise Respondent of the
    conduct of which Prescott complains. Complainant may amend the
    Complaint to add those sections claimed violated in a supplemental
    pleading or amend his pleadings to conform to the proof at hearing.
    See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.210. As regards Sycamore’s test results,
    the facts are again controverted. Therefore, the motion to dismiss
    these allegations is denied for reasons similar to those given
    previously.
    Lastly, Sycamore requests the complaint be dismissed as
    frivolous because the Complainant improperly attempts to enforce
    the written recommendations of the Illinois Environmental
    Protection Agency contained in a letter dated July 20, 1990 to the
    city. We agree with Respondent that these recommendations are not
    a proper basis for an enforcement action. As we read the complaint
    however, Prescott asks the city to conform to these recommendations
    as the relief Complainant is requesting not as an actionable
    violation itself. Therefore, the motion to dismiss on this ground
    is also denied.
    Respondent’s motion to dismiss is hereby denied. The matter
    is accepted for hearing.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that~heabove Order was adopted on the
    day of
    ~,
    1990 byavote
    of
    ____________________
    ~
    ~.
    Dorothy N4’Gunn, C~erk
    Illinois pollution Control Board
    117—154

    Back to top