ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    January 30, 1973
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    #72—95
    v.
    DAVID HALVERSON
    OPINION
    AND
    ORDER OF
    THE
    BOARD
    (BY SAMUEL T.
    LAW’ION,
    JR.):
    Complaint was filed against Respondent alleging that he owns
    and operates public water facilities located
    in
    the Village of Cort-
    land,
    near the intersection of Highway Alternate No.
    30 and Somonauk
    Road in DeKalb County.
    The complaint alleges that during late
    1970 and early 1971, Respondent constructed the public water supply
    facilities without obtaining a permit from the Environmental Protection
    Agency and has operated the facilities without approval of the Agency,
    in
    violation
    of
    Section
    15 of
    the Environmental Protection Act;
    that
    he
    has failed to submit water
    samples for analysis
    in violation of
    Section 19 of
    the Act;
    that he has failed
    to maintain continuous, ade-
    quate and satisfactory operation of
    the system in violation of Rule
    3.30 of the Public Water Supply System Rules and Regulations and failed
    to comply with the requirements of safety, cleanliness and mineral
    character
    in
    violation
    of
    Rule
    350;
    that
    Respondent
    has
    failed
    to
    pro-
    vide
    adequate
    pressure
    storage
    and
    chlorination
    in
    violation
    of
    Sec-
    tion
    18
    of
    the
    Act
    and
    has
    failed
    to
    employ
    certified
    personnel
    as
    required
    by
    Section
    501
    of
    “An
    Act
    to
    Regulate
    the
    Operating
    of
    a
    Public
    Water
    Supply”
    (Ill.
    Rev.
    Stat.,
    Ch.
    111-1/2,
    Sec.
    501).
    An
    agreed
    statement
    of
    facts
    was
    entered
    into
    between
    the
    Agency
    and
    Respondent
    in
    which
    Respondent
    admits
    the
    installation
    and
    operation
    without
    permit,
    allegedly
    as
    a
    result
    of
    misunderstanding,
    and
    that
    he
    failed
    to
    submit
    water
    samples
    for
    analysis to the Agency although
    he
    did
    submit
    water
    samples
    to
    several
    other
    public
    agencies during
    the
    time
    in
    question
    and
    the
    samples
    were
    “favorably
    tested”.
    Res-
    pondent
    further concedes that he did not employ a certified public
    water supply operator although, apparently,
    a certified operator is
    presently employed
    by
    Respondent.
    The
    agreement
    states
    that
    a pres-
    sure storage system with compressor,
    as required by regulation, has
    been installed and that “as built” plans for the water supply system
    have been submitted and approved by the Agency, and samples are being
    submitted on a monthly basis.
    On November 14,
    1972,
    we entered an order reciting the foregoing
    facts.
    We noted, however,
    that on the state of
    the
    record, we were
    without adequate guidance with respect to the type of order
    to enter in
    th
    6
    —
    635
    proceeding. We directed the parties to submit, within 30 days,
    relevant
    information
    on
    the
    question
    of
    remedy.
    A recommendation
    was submitted by the Agency in which the Agency states that the
    admitted violations appear to have been the consequence of negli-
    gence rather than intent and that all violations have been terminated.
    The Agency suggests that the order direct that Respondent refrain
    from future violations and the imposition of a fine in the amount
    of
    $500,
    of which half would be suspended in the event all violations
    are corrected within 30 days,
    and that no violations recur in the
    following three years.
    We believe the proposal to be somewhat ambi—
    gious in that the recommendation
    states
    that
    all
    violations
    have
    been
    terminated,
    yet
    suggests
    partial
    refund
    in
    the
    event
    all
    violations
    are
    corrected
    within
    thirty days.
    However, we believe the settlement
    a
    reasonable
    one
    in
    view
    of
    Respondent’s
    compliance
    at
    the
    present
    time.
    We
    will
    direct
    Respondent
    to
    cease
    and
    desist
    from
    any
    violations of the Act or Regulations in the conduct of its public water
    facility and will assess a penalty in the amount of $250.
    This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
    of law of the Board.
    IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that Respondent,
    DAVID
    HALVERSON,
    cease
    and
    desist
    all
    violations
    of
    the
    relevant
    statutes
    and
    regulatory
    provisions
    with
    respect
    to
    the
    conduct
    of
    public
    water
    supply facilities operated by him in the Village of
    Cortland.
    Respondent
    shall
    pay
    to
    the
    State
    of
    Illinois,
    a
    penalty
    in the amount of $250,
    on or before March
    6,
    1973,
    for violations
    aforesaid as charged in the complaint,
    to be paid to:
    Fiscal Services
    Division, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
    2200 Churchill
    Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62706.
    I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Bo~rd,
    certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted on the
    3c~
    day of January, 1973, by a vote of
    .3
    to
    p
    —2—
    6
    —
    636

    Back to top