ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
March
6,
1980
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Coraolainant,
v.
)
PCB
79—217
DONALD
WATSON,
Respondent.
MS.
CHRISTINE
G,
ZEMAN,
ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
THE
COMPLAINANT.
MR.
RAY L. FEHRENBACHER, FEHRENBACKER
&
FLEMING,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
THE
RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
Dr.
Satchell)
This matter comes before the Board upon a complaint
filed
on October 18,
1979 by the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency).
The com~iaintalleges
that:
Respondent
is oart owner and operator
of a public water supply and has operated that supply without
a
certified Class A, B or C operator in violation of Section 1 of
“An Act to Regulate the Operating of
a Public Water Supply”
(PWS
Act),
Rule 302
of Chapter
6:
Public Water Supplies
(Chapter
6)
and Section 18 of the Environmental Protection Act
(Act);
Re-
spondent failed to submit monthly operating reports
in violation
of Section 19 of the Act and Rule 310(A)
of Chapter
6; Respondent
failed to provide dependable chlorine feed equipment in violation
of Rule 305 of Chapter
6 and Section
18 of the Act; and Respondent
failed to provide equipment
to adjust and maintain a fluoride
ion
concentration of between
0.9
mg/i and 1.2 mg/i in violation of
Rule 306 of Chapter
6.
A hearing was held on January
Il,
1980.
At the hearing a stipulated settlement was presented for Board
approval.
The parties could not reach an agreement on the penalty
and consequently stipulated
to aggravating and mitigating factors
for the Board’s consideration.
The stiDulation provides the foliowinci
facts,
Donald Watson
is part owner of a oublic water supply located near Olney in the
Watergate Subdivision in Richland County.
It consists of one
drilled well,
an underground clearwell and a distribution system
to furnish water for general domestic use to seventeen units.
Eventually service
is to be orovided to thirty-five units.
37—47 1
—2—
The Watergate Public Water Supply is
now
a
partnership
with
George Shipley, Mike Doll,
and
Gavin Doll.
By contract with the
residents of the subdivision the supply will be owned in trust
and
operated by the residents of the subdivision when the thirty-
five lots comprising Watergate Subdivision are developed.
The
supply utilizes chemical feeding only through the use of a
chlorine
feed
pump
as part of the primary
treatment
•
Thus at
least
one
natural
person
certified
as
competent
as
a
Class
A,
B
or C water supply operator is required.
Notice of the need for
a
certified
operator
was
given
to
Respondent
on
several
occasions
from
October
22,
1975
through
November
16,
1978.
Respondent
was
negotiating
in
March
1976
with
a
certified
operator;
however,
this
arrangement
was
never
completed.
As
of
December
21,
1979
Respondent
has
hired
a
properly
certified
operator.
Respondent
asserts
that
certified
operators are unavailable
in the area and that on three occasions Watergate Subdivision’s
offer of $50 monthly was rejected.
Complainant asserts that on
December 14, 1979 in Richland County and seven surrounding
counties there were forty-nine Certified Public Water Supply
Operators.
Respondent lists average monthly operating costs of
the supply as approximately $125 to $130 while its average income
is $117.30.
The costs do not include any repairs or replacement
of equipment.
Feed equipment for fluoride solution was purchased in 1973.
This equipment was not placed in operation until the suimner of
1976, at which time it was utilized as chlorine feed equipment
with the assistance of Michael Battaglia of the Agency during an
operational visit.
After installation the chemical feed equipment
failed on several occasions in part because parts had corroded
during storage and in part because of iron which precipitated when
the water was mixed with the chlorine solution.
A monthly bacteriological sample. collected
June
7, 1976
showed bacteriological contamination in the form of coliform
bacteria (positive confirmed).
As a result it was necessary to
increase the chlorine application rate in an effort to obtain a
free residual chlorine level of 0.4 to 0.6 mg/l throughout the dis-
tribution system.
This was done by manual addition of the chlorine.
Since the original fluoride feed equipment was used for a
chlorine feed, Respondent purchased in December 1979 a fluoride
feed pump costing $387.45.
A test kit cost $64 and chemicals $32.
Complainant notes these costs should have been part of the operat-
ing costs since 1974.
37—472
—3—
In settlement Respondent admits the violations alleged and
agrees
to cease and desist.
Complainant requests a penalty of
$750.
Respondent requests a Denalty of $100, the minimum under
the PWS Act.
The Board finds the stipulated settlement acceptable under
Procedural Rule
331.
Respondent
is found in violation as alleged
in each count.
In considering the factors set forth in
Section
33(c)
of the Act the Board observes that the injury was not great
but the existence of bacteriological contaminants could have
caused great injury if not properly treated.
Prevention of sick-
ness and disease
is the reason for requiring the proper equipment
and a certified operator.
A properly run water supply
is of
social and economic value.
The location of the water supply is
not in
issue.
Technically and economically it was possible for
Respondent to comply.
Respondent has had several notices of the
deficiencies of operation and has been dilatory.
Res~ondent~s
income and expenses are tightly budgeted at the moment,
When
Respondent~sdevelopment is
completed to thirty—five units
there
should be increased income easing budgetary considerations.
The
fact that there are forty—nine certified operators in the area
does not necessarily mean that they are all available for employ-
ment but one of them should be able
to take on Respondent~s
operation.
Respondent should have made these factors part of his
consideration when he set out
to
deve1p~Watergate Subdivision.
The Board
finds that a penalty of $250 is necessary to aid the
enforcement of the Act.
This Opinion constitutes the Board~sfindings of fact and
conclusions
of law in this matter.
ORDER
it
is the
Order of the Pollution Control Board that:
I.
Donald Watson
is found in violation of Section
1
an
“An
Act to Regulate the Operating of a Public Water
Supply”,
Section 18 of the Environmental Protection Act and Rule
302 of Chapter
6:
Public Water Supplies; Section 19
of
the Act and Rule 310(A)
of Chapter
6:
Rule 305 of
Chapter
6 and Section 18 of the Act;
and Rule 306 of
Chapter
6.
2.
Respondent shall cease and desist further violations.
37—473
—4—
3.
Within thirty-five days of the date of this Order,
Respondent shall, by certified check or money order
payable
to the State of Illinois, pay a civil penalty
of $250 which
is to be sent
to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Mrs.
Anderson
abstains.
I,
Christan
L,
Moffett,
Clerk of the
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were
adopted
on
the
~
day
of
~
,
1980 by a
vote
of~O
cL~~
~
Christan L. Moffd
Clerk
Illinois Pollutio
ontrol Board
37—474