ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January 30, 1973

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

#72—163

v.

VILLAGE OF BEECHER

HERMAN

R.

TAVINS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF

OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

GEORGE M. BUTTELL, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF VILLAGE OF BEECHER

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(BY SAMUEL T.

LAWTON,

JR.):

Complaint was filed against the Village of Beecher alleging

violations of Section

18 of the Environmental Protection Act and

Rule 3.13

of the Public Water Supply Systems Rules and Regulations,

in the conduct of the Village’s public water supply facilities.

Specifically, the Village was charged with failure to provide clean

water in adequate quantities and of satisfactory mineral character,

and has failed to provide adequate treatment for.excessive iron

content contained in the water.

The Village has stipulated that

the iron content exceeds the applicable limit of

.3 ppm.

Hearing was held on the complaint on September 21, 1972 and

continued to December 14,

1972,. in order

to enable Respondent

to

make engineering studies to correct the deficiencies noted.

At

the December 14,

1972 hearing,

a report from the engineering firm

of

R.

W. Robinson

&

Associates was submitted into evidence

(Respon—

dent’s Exhibit

2)

setting forth four alternative methods for reducing

the

iron content of the water.

The Village represented that it would

determine which alternative method would be adopted by the Village.

The case presents no issue of fact nor are we advised at this

point

which method proposed has been accepted by the Village.

Respondent’s Exhibit

2 sets

forth that the present water supply and

storage facilities of

the Village consist of two wells and

pumps

rated at approximately 375 gallons per minute each and a 100,000

gallon elevated tank.

Water consumption is based on a population

of 1,800, which on the basis of maximum daily use of 150 gallons

per person per day would equal 270,000 gallons.

The pumping equipment

is adequate to provide well in excess of this estimate.

The report continues as follows:

6—641

---

“To bring the iron content of the water to the permissible

standard as established by the E.

P.

A. we recommend the in-

stallation of

iron removal equipment at the water source,

the

wells.

If it

is decided to install iron removal equipment,

then

one of the following projects should be undertaken.

A.

Treatment of one of the wells using the existing

well room

to house the equipment.

B.

Treatment of both wells using the existing well

room and part of the fire department building to

house the equipment.

C.

Treatment of one or both wells

and.

housing the

equipment in a new building.

D.

Drilling a new well and constructing a new treat-

ment plant at the site.

The following are our comments and approximate construc-

tion cost estimates,

including engineering fees,

for the

projects outlined above.

Project

“A” would involve the installation of four

(4)

6’-6” diameter iron removal filters in the existing well

room of the municipal building including necessary piping

revisions,

new reinforced concrete floor and electrical work.

The estimated cost for this project

is $82,500.00.

Project

“B” would involve approximately twice the con-

struction plus additional piping as outlined in

“A” and is

estimated to cost approximately $170,000.00.

However, the

entire truck bay adjacent to the well room would have to be

utilized.

Project “C” would require the purchase of property

near the wells and the construction of

a building to house

the equipment.

Depending on whether one or both wells are to

be treated the cost estimate is between $110,000.00 and

$230,000.00 which does not include the cost of property.

Project

“D” involves the drilling of a new well

(800

to 1,000 gallon per minute capacity)

and construction of a

treatment plant.

This project would cost approximately

$300,000.00 plus

the cost of purchasing property.

You will note the least expensive project would be to

treat the water from one well and house the equipment in the

existing well room.

B

—

642

---

This project would treat approximately twice the

maximum days use as we outlined earlier in this report.

The other well would be utilized if the demand on the

system required it but the water would by-pass the

filters.”

On the present State of the record, we do not believe it

incumbent

upon the Board

to direct which alternative the Village

should pursue.

We are only concerned with compliance with the

relevant regulations and, accordingly, order the Village to take

immediate steps to bring their water facility into compliance.

We

will direct that the Village select which program it intends to

pursue and obtain the requisite permits from the Agency by May 1,

1973, and further direct that the Village he in conpiiance with all

statutory and regulatory provisions with respect to the operation

of a public water facility by Novertiber

1,

1973.

On the state of

the record,

the imposition of a penalty does not appear warranted.

This opinion constitutes

the findings

of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board.

IT IS

THE

ORDER of the Pollution Control Board the the Village

of Beecher shall apply for and obtain the requisite permits from the

Environmental Protection Agency for construction of its public water

supply facility by May

1,

1973,

and shall be in full compliance with

all statute and regulatory provisions with respect to the conduct

and operation of a public water supply facility by November

1,

1973.

Reports on the progress of its compliance program shall be made monthly

to the Environmental Protection Agency,

the first to be filed no later

than June

1,

1973.

I, Christan Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,

certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted on the dc~’4’~

day of January,

1973,

by

a vote of

~3

to

~

—3—

6

—

643

---