ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December

8,

1977

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Complainant,

v.

)

 PCB 77—105

MORTELL MANAGEMENT COMPANY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by Mr~ Dumelle):

This case comes before the Board on a complaint alleging

violation of Rule 1201 of Chapter

 3: Water Pollution of the

Board~sRules and Regulations and Section 12(a)

 of the Act~

Specifically Respondent has been rccused of operating a waste

water treatment works without a certified operator.

 A hearing

was held on July 28,

 1977 at the Council Chambers in Crete,

Illinois.

Respondent ha~owned and operated the Balmoral Woods Inn

in Crete,

 Illinois since June,

1975

 (R.5),

 The Inn has its own

waste water treatment plant which had not been under the super-

vision of a certified operator from June, 1975 until the hearing

date.

 Mr. Bennett stated on behalf of Complainant that his of-

fice had no record of a certified operator at this facility (R.l6).

These facts are uncontroverted in the record and are sufficient

for the Board to find that Respondent has violated Rule 1201

of Chapter

 3: Water Pollution and Section 12(a)

 of the Act.

The Board may impose penalties for violations of its Regu—

lations whenever necessary to aid in the enforcement of the Act.

Respondentts conduct in this case shows a disregard for the in-

tegrity of the Act and the Board~sRules,

 A penalty will insure

that this disregard does not go unnoticed and that others may

be warned against similar designs.

The subject facility was operated by a man who had some

experience in operating sewage treatment facilities and had at

one time applied to take a test

 to be certified.

 Although he

was given permission to take the examination,

 he never did

 (R.19)

The operator, Mr. Gerlock, received some periodic advice from

a consulting engineer named Jacobs

 (R.53,6l,68,102)

 on how to

operate this plant.

 Mr. Jacobs was not on the Respondent~s

28

—

365

payroll as

it

 ~nlo

~

 hut hc was compen~ ~ed

 for his advice

by

 free use of ~3.esponaL~r

 ~elf course, swimn~Pqpooi

and

exercise facilities

 (R.63~

 ~hoigh he

was

 i~lved

in the

supervision of this

 facility

“~

 racobs was

the

 operator.

Mr. Gerlock had been the nper~

 ~ince 1970 n ~J

he

 was the one

spending l0~l2hours per week

 ng after the plant

 (R.28,29).

One of the duties of an oper~ or is the Eubmission

of

operating repoits to the Agency.

 ~r, Gerlock

 ~ad been

 sending

in

 reports from June,

 1975 until

 -.rch,

 1977 under

 his own

 sig-

nature (P.43).

 In April,

 1977 tll procedure c~anged.

 Mr. Jacobs

signed a blank operating report

 oh was cop.

 with

his

 sig-

nature

 so that Mr. Gerlock could

 11 in the

 ~orts

 and submit

them under the signature of a mae ~~howas believed

tu

 a certi-

fied operator

 (R,1l4,1l8)

 The e~temefailed when

 it was dis—

covered that Mr. Jarobs had lost ~‘~scertification

 (R.64)

Seven of these misleading repo~z~iere submitted

 (R.119),

 There

was

 some disagreement in the s

 3. as to whetner

 this misuse of

Mr. Jacobs’

 signature was au~io

 ~d by him, but

 the disagreement

is

 unimportant.

 The Responder

 this

 case

 is Mortell Management

 Company

 which will be held ~

 ~eble for the

 misconduct per-

petrated

 here.

Instead of hiring a cc

 ~e3 operator

 to supervise the day

to day

 operation of its plant, Re’~uondentchose

to

 leave Mr.

Gerlock

 in that position.

 This

 ulted in

 cost savings to

Respondent

 which are not quant~ft~in

 :to record

 but are real

nonetheless.

 After receiving warnings from the

 Agency

 (Exhibits

1 and 2),

 the only change

 in Respondent’s

 procedures was the

deception described above.

 After

 the hearing in

 this case had

been

 completed,

 Respondent attempted to augment

 the record with

instances

 of its recent good faith attempts

 to comply with

Rule

 1201,

 This additional information will

 not be considered

by the

 Board since it adds nothing

of

 merit.

 If Respondent has

in fact

 remedied the problem,

 it did

 not do

 so until it had

been

 prosecuted and its scheme had

 been

 uncovered.

A

 penalty of $1,000 will be

 assessed against Respondent

to aid

 in the enforcement of the Act,

This Opinion constitutes the

 Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

Mr. Werner dissents.

ORDER

1.

 Responlant shall cease and desist immediately

 from any

violatio:n~of Rule 1201 of Chapter

3:

 Water Pollution of

the Boa~i

 Rules

 and Regulations.

28

—

366

2.

 Within

30

dci

IL

s.c

da

shall forward

tIL

3.

money order payable

/

filir

Fiscas 5r~

Illinois E

2200

 Churchr~

Springfield

IT IS SO ORDERED,

I,

 Christan L.

 Moffett,

 C’

Control Board, hereby

 certify

IL

were adopted on the

~

by a vote of

1/-,

D~~

 IL s

nne:irai

2~y

~ncy

Road

lL~o~

IL

ci

IL

a

 2~1intion

.1

f

 Order

~Jt

~/)

ii

~~i

.~.,

uflti0J~