ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August
3,
1978
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
vs.
)
PCB 75—218
E. LYSLE EPPERSON, ALPHA
)
FAY EPPERSON,
and LYSLEEN
HUNTER,
Respondents.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE
BOARD
(by Dr. Satchell):
This matter comes before the Board on remand from the
Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth Judicial District.
Originally
a complaint was filed on May
28,
1975 by the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency
(Agency).
An amended complaint was filed on
February
13,
1976.
This complaint made allegations of violations
of the Environmental Protection Act
(Act),
the Public Water
Supply Systems Rules and Regulations
(Regulations)
which are
continued in effect by Section 49(c)
of the Act and incorporating
by reference certain sections
of the “Great Lakes
—
Upper
Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers Report on
Policies for the Review and Approval of Plans and Specifications
for Public Water Supplies”
(Standards),
several Rules of the
Board’s Chapter
6:
Public Water Supplies and Section
1 of “An
Act
to Regulate the Operating of
a Public Water Supply,” Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
Ch.
111 1/2 Par.
501
(1975).
These allegations are more
completely set out in the Board order of September 30,
1976
(23 PCB 581).
In that order the Board made a final determination
concerning forty-nine of the Respondents based on a stipulated
agreement.
This proceeding is concerned with the three remaining
Respondents.
A hearing was held in this matter on February 22,
1978.
In an order on April
27, 1978 the Board stated that if
interrogatories answered after the hearing date raised new matters
relevant to Respondent’s defense that Respondents should be allowed
an opportunity for further hearing.
Since no new pleadings have
been filed the Board assumes the Respondents intend to present no
further evidence.
Requests
for admissions were served on these Respondents
in
1976.
Since the requests went unanswered they are deemed admitted
under Procedural Rule 314.
The admissions are sufficient to find
the alleged violations; however,
the Board will examine the
evidence presented at hearing.
E. Lysle Epperson testified at the hearing.
Respondent,
31—143
2
Lysleen Hunter is Mr. Epperson’s daughter.
She owns a lot in
Lakeview Acres
CR.
81).
There is no house on the lot nor any
connection with the water system.
Lysleen Hunter was never a
member of the water association.
The Board finds that there is
no basis to
find Lysleen Hunter in violation of the Regulations
or Act.
Respondent, Lysleen Hunter,
is dismissed from the pro-
ceeding.
Respondent,
Alpha Fay Epperson, who
is
82 years old,
is
E. Lysle Epperson’s mother.
She did own a lot in the subdivision
with a house on it
(R.
54).
She paid for water from the water
supply system although she never attended the homeowner’s meetings
CR.
54).
When the other resident respondents drilled individual
wells Mrs. Epperson also put down a well
(R.
55).
E.
Lysle
Epperson’s name appears on the loan for his mother’s property
because his parents were too old to get the loan on their own
(R.
55).
Mrs. Epperson does not presently own any property.
The
Board does find that the information provided at the hearing
with the admissions is sufficient to find
Mrs.
Epperson in
•violation of the alleged Regulations and the Act.
In making a
final determination the Board must consider the factors of Section
33(c)
of the Act.
In this case there was no evidence presented
as to any public injury.
Mrs. Epperson did put in a well as did
most of the other respondents in this case.
The Board finds that
a penalty would not aid in the enforcement of the Act in the case
of Alpha Fay Epperson.
A violation of Section
1 of
“An Act to
Regulate the Operating of
a Public Water Supply” requires a
minimum penalty of $100.00.
As noted in the Board order of
September
30,
1976 this penalty is suspended.
Respondent E. Lysle Epperson was the original developer of
this subdivision
CR.
57).
It was originally laid out in 1960
(R.
57).
Prior
to turning over the water system to the association
of property owners Mr. Epperson stated that the water system was
checked by the predecessor to the Agency and that no problems
were noted
(R.
59).
Epperson did send monthly water samples when
he operated the system
(R.
48).
When Mr. Epperson sold each lot
$300.00 was for the purchase of the water system
(R.
59).
Public
Health Department officials did stop to see Mr. Epperson about the
system in 1965 but left after determining Mr. Epperson was not
selling water
CR.
65).
A Public Health permit was obtained when
the well was constructed
CR.
68).
The mortgage company took over
what property interests Mr. Epperson had left in approximately
1971
CR. 41,
42).
The facts presented to the Board do not present a clear
picture of what has happened in this case.
The very fact that
this problem originated in the early 1960’s adds much to the
lack of clarity.
Memories become dim and evidence is hard to
provide.
Violations could be found on the basis of the admissions
alone; however, the Board finds that there
is insufficient basis
in the record to verify ownership and responsibility for the
water system.
The allegations against
E.
Lysle Epperson are
dismissed.
31—144
3
This opinion constitutes
the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
It is the order of the Pollution Control Board
that:
1.
Respondents Lysleen Hunter and E.
Lysle Epperson are
dismissed.
2.
Respondent, Alpha Fay Epperson is found in violation
as alleged and more fully set forth in the Board
order of September
30,
1976,
23 PCB 587,
588.
I, Christan L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, her by certify the above 0 inion and Order were
adopted on the
~3
~
day of
_____________,
1978 by a vote
of
_______________
Christan L. Mo ~
,
Clerk
Illinois Pollut
n Control Board
31—145