ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    December
    4,
    1980
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 78—37
    CITY OF OREGON,
    )
    Respondent.
    M5~JIJDITH
    S.
    GOODIE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT.
    MR. DAVID SMITH APPEARED ON BEHALF
    OF THE RESPONDENT.
    OPII’IION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J.D. Dumelle)~
    On February
    7,
    1978,
    the Environmental Protection ~gency
    (Agency)
    filed a Complaint against the City of Oregon (Oregon).
    The
    Complaint alleged that, since December
    9,
    1977,
    Oregon
    had
    operated its public water supply system without chlorination
    treatment of the water before
    it
    enters the distribution system,
    in violation of Rule 305 of Chapter
    6
    Public Water Supply
    Regulations.
    A hearing was held
    in this matter on May
    9,
    1978.
    Several citizen witnesses
    testified,
    Rule 305 of Chapter
    6 became effective on December 21,
    1974.
    On December 22, 1975W
    Oregon filed a petition requesting a
    two-year variance from Rule 305
    (75 PCB 497).
    The Board,
    on
    I’larch 11,
    1976,
    granted Oregon a variance for a period of 150
    days,
    expiring on August 10,
    1976.
    Oregon appealed the Board’s
    decision, and the appellate
    court, based upon a motion by the
    Board, dismissed the appeal for the purpose of allowing the Board
    to conduct a hearing on the merits
    of
    Oregon’s variance petition.
    A hearing on the variance petition was held on April 15,
    1977.
    Part IV of the Procedural Rules requires
    the
    Petitioner
    to
    furnish the Board with
    a transcript 15 days following completion
    of
    the
    hearing.
    On October 13,
    1977,
    the Board ordered Oregon to
    submit by November
    7,
    1977,
    a transcript of the hearing held on
    April
    15, 1977.
    Having received no transcript,
    the Board, on
    December
    8,
    1977,
    dismissed the proceeding.
    The Complaint
    in
    this matter was
    filed on February
    7,
    1978.
    On March
    7,
    1978,
    the
    Agency
    served on Oregon
    a Request for
    Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents.
    Oregon failed
    to respond to this
    request within 20 days after service thereof.
    40—1
    Each of the matters of fact and the genuineness of each document
    of which admission was requested is, therefore,
    admitted,
    pursuant
    to
    Procedural
    Rule
    314.
    Furthermore,
    the
    Board,
    on•
    April
    27,
    1978,
    granted
    a
    Motion
    for
    Sanctions
    filed
    by
    the
    Agency based
    upon
    the
    City’s failure to respond to
    tnterrogatories
    and
    a
    Request
    for
    Production
    of
    Documents
    served
    upon
    it
    by
    the
    Agency.
    The
    Board’s
    April
    27,
    1978, Order debarred
    Oregon from filing any pleading or introducing any testimony or
    evidence on various natters, including operation of the system,
    costs of chlorination
    and
    the presence or absence of
    contaminants.
    Since the date of the hearing in this matter, the Board has
    delayed decision pending resolution of a regulatory proposal
    exempting ground water systems which have demonstrated the
    ability to provide safe drinking water.
    On October 30,
    1980, the
    Board dismissed that proceeding CR78-i) and Rule 305 remains in
    effect.
    The City of Oregon owns and operates a public water supply
    system which serves approximately 3800 people.
    The system
    includes three drilled wells, an equalizing reservoir, and a
    distribution system.
    The evidence, including the Request for
    Admission as well as testimony at the hearing, indicates that
    Oregon
    has not, since the effective date of Rule 305, chlorinated
    its water or purchased treated water containing chlorine for its
    public water supply system
    CR.15).
    The only witness testifying on behalf of Oregon testifted
    about the reasonableness of the chlorination requirement
    CR.51).
    He indicated that health hazards
    may
    be associated with the
    chlorination requirement and suggested other methods which may,
    in his opinion, be preferable to chlorination as a method of
    purifying drinking water CR.62).
    In addition, several citizen
    witnesses,
    four of whom were from cities other than Oregon,
    criticized the chlorination requirement.
    The issue before
    the
    Board
    in
    an
    enforcement
    case
    in
    which
    a
    violation of a specific regulation is alleged is not the
    reasonableness of that regulations but simply whether or not the
    Respondent has complied.
    The Board
    finds
    that
    the
    City
    of
    Oregon
    did
    not comply with the chlorination requirement and, therefore,
    violated Rule 305 of Chapter 6.
    The proper forum for questioning
    the reasonableness of a regulation is in a regulatory proceeding
    or, if the source considers immediate compliance with the
    regulation to impose an unreasonable hardship, in a variance
    proceeding.
    In fashioning a remedy in an enforcement case,
    the
    Board
    must consider the factors detailed in Section 33Cc) of the Act.
    The City was debarred from introducing evidence on certain
    aspects of these factors, including information on the costs of
    modifying its system or installing chlorination equipment, the
    presence
    or
    absence
    of
    contaminants
    in
    the
    system,
    and the
    40—2
    availability of the funds
    to install chlorination equipment.
    Nevertheless, the record
    does
    contain some information on the
    Section 33(c) factors.
    The Rockford Regional T~anagerof the
    Agency’s public water supply division testified that since 1975,
    when he was appointed to his present position, there has been no
    evidence of contamination of Oregon’s water supply.
    However~the
    Agency did submit contrary evidence indicating some contamination
    from 1965 to 1970
    (R.126—128).
    The Board does not question the
    value of
    a source of public water supply;
    however, that value
    is
    diminished when reasonable measures required for protection of
    the public health are not followed.
    Finally, although Oregon was
    debarred from introducing evidence of the economic reasonableness
    of compliance, the parties did stipulate (though for purposes of
    setting a performance bond only) that chlorination would cost the
    City $24,000
    (R.50).
    The Board notes that this figure appears
    quite high.
    See discussion of chlorination costs
    in R78-8
    (Opinion and Order of October 30,
    1980).
    However, no economic
    hardship was alleged and no issue relating to the technical
    feasibility of chlorination was raised.
    The Board will not assess a penalty in this case.
    The Board
    will order that Oregon cease and desist from its violation of the
    Act and install and operate chlorination equipment within
    6
    months.
    This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and
    conclusions of
    law of the Board in this matter.
    ORDER
    It
    is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that.~
    1)
    The City of Oregon is found to have violated Rule 305
    of the Public ~‘7aterSupply Regulations,
    Chapter
    6 of
    the Board’s Rules and Regulations;
    2)
    Within six months of
    the date of this Order, the City
    of Oregon shall provide chlorination treatment of its
    water before
    it enters the distribution system.
    3)
    No penalty shall be assessed.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I,
    Christan L.
    Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify that
    t,be above Opinion and Order
    was
    açlopted on the ‘~/~
    day of L~-~-~-~
    ,
    1980 by a vote
    of
    LI~O___
    Christan L. Mdf~é~t,Clerk
    Illinois Polluti~nControl Board
    40—3

    Back to top