ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 28, 1976

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Complainant,

PCB 76—145

EUREKA KNOLLS WATER

ASSOCIATION,

Respondent,

Mr. Stephen Gunning, Attorney at Law, appeared for the

Complainant.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Dr. Satchell):

This matter comes before the Pollution Control Board

(Board)

upon a complaint filed on May 12,

1976 by the Environmental Pro-

tection Agency (A~ency) alleging that the Eureka Knolls Water

Association owns and operates a public water

supply serving

approximately -45 persons

in the Eureka Knolls Subdivision, near

the City of Eureka, Woodford County, Illinois.

The complaint

further alleges that Respondent~spublic water supply consists

of two drilled wells, a 3,000 gallon pressure storage tank and

a distribution system; that the water is fluoridated prior to

its entrance into the distribution system; and that since Decem-

ber 21,

1975, Respondent has failed to chlorinate

its water in

violation of Rule 305 of the Chapter

6: Public Water Supply

Regulations

(Regulations).

A hearing was held in this matter on August 17,

1976 at

Eureka, Illinois.

At this time a Stipulation of Facts and

Agreements was entered into evidence.

No testimony was given.

The stipulated facts are as follows.

The Eureka Knolls

Water Association

is a homeowners~ association which owns and

operates

a public

water supply serving approximately forty-

five people

in the Eureka

Knolls Subdivision near Eureka,

Woodford County,

Illinois.

The system consists of two drilled

wells,

a 3,000

gallon pressure

storage tank and

a distribution

system.

It

is stipulated that the

water

is fluoridated prior

to its entrance

into the distribution system.

The Chapter

6:

Public Water Supply Regulations provide that all public water

supplies must provide chlorinated water within one year of the

effective date,

December 21,

1974.

Shortly after the adoption

24

—

145

---

—2—

of these rules the Agency sent copies of these rules to all

public water supplies listed in its records, including Respon-

dent.

On July 17,

1975 the Agency

in a general mailing to all

public water supplies noted the upcoming compliance date.

On

February 11,

1976 the Agency sent a letter to Respondent again

noting the now effective chlorination requirements.

The Agency

received no response and on March 23, 1976 an Agency Enforce-

ment Notice concerning failure to chlorinate was sent to

Respondent.

On May 10, 1976

a complaint was filed by the

Agency with the Pollution Control Board alleging Respondent’s

failure to provide chlorination.

Subsequent to this filing

it was discovered by the agency that the Agency had received

a letter prior to the complainant’s filing from engineers

retained by Respondent stating that Respondent was planning

to do everything necessary to bring

its water supply in com-

pliance with existing regulations,

including the installation

of chlorination equipment.

The parties further stipulate and

agree that the Respondent has

in the past maintained its

water supply

in a reasonably safe condition and that water

samples routinely

~yzed each month by the Agency have shown

that the well supp~ysource for the supply has been free from

bacteriological contamination at the time of sampling.

On

July

19, 1976 Respondent forwarded plans and specifications

to the Agency for the installation of chlorination equipment.

The Agency has reviewed and approved these plans and will

issue its construction permit by Augus~t20,

1976.

The terms of the settlement agreement are that Respon-

dent will undertake the installation of chlorination equipment

at its water supply facility in accordance with the terms and

conditions of the permit.

Respondent agrees to have its

chlorination installation operable by September

30,

1976;

and upon issuance of an operating permit by the Agency will

begin operation of the chlorination equipment on or before

October

8,

1976.

Because of the initial confusion and Re-

spondent’s good faith effort towards complying with the

Regulations the Agency and Respondent agreed that no monetary

penalty would be assessed.

The Board finds the settlement agreement acceptable under

Procedural Rule

333.

The Board further finds Respondent was

in violation of Rule 305 of the Regulations but that a penalty

would not aid

in the enforcement of the Act.

Respondent will

be required to carry out all the conditions of the agreement.

24

—

146

---

—3—

This opinion constitutes

the Board’s findings of fact

and conclusions of

law.

ORDER

It

is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:

1.

Respondent

is found to have been in violation

of

Rule 305 of the Chapter

6: Public Water Supply

Regulations.

2.

Respondent shall have installed a chlorination

system by September 30,

1976.

This system shall

begin operation with the proper permit by

October

8,

1976.

I, Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify the above 0 inion and Order

were adopted on the

~

day of

_________,

1976 by a

vote of

.

Christan L. Moffett,~ erk

Illinois Pollution ~d~trol

Board