ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November

14,

1972

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

#

72—95

DAVID HALVERSON

Interim Opinion

&

Order of the Board

(by Mr.

Currie)

The parties have submitted an agreed statement of

facts indicating the construction and operation of a public

water supply without a permit, the failure to submit required

samples, and the failure to employ a certified operator.

All these violations,

it is agreed, have since been terminated.

What we lack

is any guidance from the parties as to what

order we should enter.

As

long ago as EPA v. Chicago Housing Authority,

#71—320,

3 PCB 259

(Dec.

9,

1971),

we observed that it

is

part of the comolainant’s case to provide us with information

on which we can base an informed decision as to the appro-

priate remedy.

In that case, where

a hearing had been held

but no evidence as to appropriate remedies had been received,

we remanded the case for further proceedings, pointing out

“for future reference that it is highly desirable that

evidence as

to remedy be placed in the original record”

to avoid delays in decision.

We reaffirmed the obligation

of the parties to make recommendations

as to remedy only

a

few weeks ago during oral argument in #72-79, EPA v. Sangamo

Constr.

Co.

After all,

as we then stated,

the case was

EPA1s, not ours.

The party seeking relief from the Board

should make whatever factual record and whatever argument is

necessary to support

the remedial order desired.

Our need for proposals from the parties as to remedy

is in no way diminished by the fact that the facts relating

to the

existence of

a violation are admitted,

as here.

We shall allow 30 days

for the submission of relevant

information from the parties on the question of remedy.

It

is so ordered.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board,

certify that the Board adopted the above Interim Opini n

& Order this 14th day of November,

1972 by

a vote of

*

3

6—