ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May
8,
1975
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 74—215
LOUIS ROKIS,
Respondent,
Mr.
Stephen Weiss, attorney
for Complainant.
Mr.
Layne McGehee,
attorney
for Respondent,
INTERIM OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
Dr.
Odell)
On June
7,
1974,
the Illinois Environmental
Protectiob
Auencv
(Agency)
filed
a Complaint against Louis Rokis with
the
Illinois Pollution Control Board
(Board)
.
The Complaint alleged
that
the Respondent operated
a public water supply
in violation
of
the
Illinois Environmental Protection
Act
(Act)
and
the
Public
Water
Supply
Regulations
(Chapter
Six)
.
Complainant
alleged
that
Respondent~s
operations
of
furnishing
water
from
three wells
to
residents
in six Rokis subdivisions which contain
a total
of
22
lots constituted operation of
a public water
supply.
The sub-
divisions are located near Colona,
Henry County,
Illinois,
in the
South One~half of the Southeast Quarter and the South One-half
of
the Southwest Quarter of Section
1,
Township
17 North, Range
I East
of the Fourth Principal Meridian.
An Amended Complaint
was
filed November
25,
1974,
Specifically,
the
Amended
Complaint
charged that Respondent
from July
1,
1970,
until June
7,
1974:
1.
Failed
to direct and maintain
the continuous operation
and maintenance
of
the public water supply
to keep
the water safe
in
quality and clean
and adequate
in quantity
for ordinary domestic
consumption
in violation of Section
18
of the Act.
2.
Operated
and maintained his public water supply system
with well Nos.
1
and
3
constructed in pits and well No.
2 buried
below ground level
in continuing violation
of Rule
3,12
of
Chapter Six and Sections 3.2.3.14 and
6.2.2 of the
‘1Great Lakes-
Upper Mississippi
River Board
of State Sanitary Engineers Report
on Policies
for the Review and Approval
of Plans and Specifications
for Public Water
Supplies,’
(Standards)
incorporated
in Rule 3.12
of Chapter Six and therefore
in
violation
of Section
18 of the
Act.
3,
Failed,
in
operating
and maintaining
his
public water
supply system,
to provide adequate hydropneumatic pressure storage
and failed to prevent freezing
in that he
located the water storage
16
—555
—2—
tanks
for
each
well
above
the
ground
surface
without
complete
housing,
or
failed
to
earth-mound
the
tanks
*ith
one
end
projecting
into an operating house, all of which is a continuing violation
of Rule 3.30 of Chapter
Six,
Section 7.1.5 of the
Standards and
Technical Release 10-8 as incorporated in the Standards
and
Section 18 of the Act.
4.
Maintained and operated his public water supply with
well No.
2 less than
75
feet
from
a
septic
tank
and various water
distribution lines from the three wells less than 75 feet from the
septic drainage tiles in continuing violation of Rule 3.11 of
Chapter Six, Technical Release 10-1 as incorporated into Rule 3.11
and therefore in violation of Section 18 of the Act.
5.
Operated and maintained his public water supply in such
a manner
that
he
has
distributed water containing offensive odor
and taste in continuing violation of Section 18 of the
Act.
6.
Operated and maintained his public water supply through
the
use
of undersized distribution
mains
of less than
six
inches
in
diameter
(some
as
small
as
3/4 inch in diameter)
in continuing
violation of Rule 3.40 of Chapter
Six and
Sections 8.1 and 8.1.3
of the Standards incorporated therein, and therefore in violation
of
Section
18
of
the
Act.
The
Amended
Complaint
further
alleged
that:
7.
From
September
12,
1973,
until
June
7,
1974,
Respondent
failed to have a competent certified water supply operator for
his system, in
violation
of
Section
1
of
an
“Act
to Regulate the
Operating of a Public Water Supply”
(Ill. Rev. Stat., ch 111-1/2,
par.
501, effective September 12, 1973, as amended by PA 78-810).
Jurisdiction was found upon paragraph 523 of this Act.
Hearings were held on October 22, 23, and 31, 1974, in
Colona, Illinois.
There was much discussion in the record of
whether the Board
had
jurisdiction of the case in that none of the
wells served 10 or more separate lots or
properties.
“Public
Water Supply” under Section
3(j)
of the Act mess “all mains, pipes
and structures
through
which
water
is
obtained
and
distributed
to
the public, including wells and well structures, intakes and cribs,
pumping
stations, treatment plants, reservoirs, storage tanks and
appurtenances, collectively ot severally, actually used or intended
for use for the purpose of
furnishing
water
for
drinking
or
general
domestic
use
in incorporated municipalities; or unincorporated
communities where 10 or more separate lots or properties
are
being
served or intended to be served; State-owned parks and memorials;
and State-owned educational, charitable, or penal institutions.”
The
definition
is
meant
to subject all water supply systems where
10
or
more
separate
lots
or
properties
are
being
served
or
are
intended to be served.
The test is not
how
many wells are being
operated by one individual but rather whether a water. system, under
the ownership and control of one person, supplies water to 10 or
more
separate lots or properties.
The evidence establishes that Rokis owned and controlled all
three wells until the sale of well No.
2 in early 1973
•
His
owner—
1I~5s.
—3—
ship is established because he carried out the incidents of owner-
ship on the subdivisions; namely,
he told individual buyers that
he would supply water
to them
(R.
136,
214,
268,
330); he paid
for the drilling of wells Nos.
2 and 3 and the distribution system
from all three wells
CR.
108-114);
he installed the original stor-
age tanks at all three wells
(R. 133, 134);
and he received rent
in connection with the operation bf all three systems until the
1973 sale of well No,
2
(Resp.
Ex,
4),
Based on these considera-
tions we find thIt the Respondent owned all the wells until early
1973, and continued to own well Nos,
1 and
3 thereafter, and that
the three wells constitute one public water supply within the mean-
ing of the Act,
The Board tferefore has jurisdiction to determine
whether violations of the Act and regulations occurred,
The record discloses that in operating the public water
supply for residents of the subdivisions, BoRis violated the Act
and the regulations.
Section
18 of the Act was violated because
Respondent supplied inadequate quantities
of water to users to
meet their daily and ordinary needs,
.Water outages have occurred
frequently
(R,
270,
312,
320-
332)
although usually for less than
24—hour periods,
Water pressure has been low on numerous occasions
when Rokis has been owner of the public water supply
(B,
216,- 248,
270). Violations of Section
18 of the Act for distributing water
containing offensive odor were not established by the record, Com-
plaints relating to odor have occurred on well No,
2 after the
early 1973 date on which Respondent had sold the well to another
neighbor,
Since we rule that Respondent is not liable for odors
at well No,
2 after it was transferred to a neighbor, we need not
rule on the question of whether “offensive odors” constitute a
violation of Section
18 of the Act,
Respondent violated various Rules of Chapter Six.
First,
pursuant to sections 3.2,3.14 and 6.2.2 of the Standards,
Rule
3,12
(Construction) was violated from July
1,
1970, until early
1973 for all three wells and until June
7,
1974,
for well Nos,
I
and 3,
The wellcasings did not project six inches above the pump-
house floor since none of the wells had pumphouse floors.
Further-
more,
none of the casings extended 18 inches above ground level
(R,
19),
Second, pursuant to Section 7,1,5
of the Standards and
Technical Release 10-P incorporated by that Section, Rule 3,30
(Storage Reservoirs) was violated from July 1,
1970,
until early
1973 for all three wells in that the pressure tanks for the wells
were not above ground and were not completely housed,
During this
same period the storage tank for well No,
2 and until June
7,
1974,
the storage tank for well No,
3
were insufficient to meet the re-
quirements of
35 gallons per capita as required by Technical Re-
lease 10-8
(B,
118,
134),
Third, pursuant to Technical Release
10-1 incorporated into Chapter Six, Rule 3,11
(Location) was violat~
ed from July 1,
1970,
until early 1973 for well No,
2 because the
well and septic tank were not 75 feet apart
(EPA Ex,
3;
B.
106).
Fourth, pursuant to Section 8,1 and 8,1,3 of the Standards,
Rule
3,40
(Distribution Systems) was violated from July 1,
1970,
until
early 1973 for the distribution system of all three wells and
until
June
7,
1974,
for
well Nos.
I
and
3
in that
size
of diameter
of less than four inches was used in the subdivisions as admitted
by Respondent in his
restimony
(R.
133),
Section
1 of an
“Act to Regulate the Operating of
a Public
16
—557
—4—
Water
Supply”
requires
that
a
person
certified
as
a
competent
water
supply
operator
conduct
the
operations
of
a
public
water
supply.
Board
jurisdiction
is
founded
on
Section
23
of
this
Act.
Respondent
violated
Section
1
of
this
Act
in
that
he
was
neither
a
certified
operator
nor
contracted
with
another
so
certified
to
operate his public water supply.
(R.
36). Violations occurred
from September 12, 1973, until June 7, 1974.
While
Section
33(c)
of
the
Act
might
require
the
imposition
of a large penalty against the Respondent for violations in con-
nection with, all three wells since July 1,
1970, we will not assess
a penalty
at
this
time.
The serious nature of the
problems
facing
the
residents
makes
clear
that
cooperation
among
affected
persons
is
the
best
method
to
resolve
the difficulties.
At the close of
the
hearing,
citizens
expressed
a
desire
to
form
associations
to
operate
the
system
associated
with
well
No.
2
and
the
system
associated
with
well
No.
3.
These citizens should meet with the
parties
and
all
should
attempt
to
work
out
an
agreement
to
serve
the
needs
of
the
area.
Good—faith
efforts
by
Respondent
to
accom-
modate
the
affected
residents
will
be
considered
by
the
Board
when
the
time
is appropriate for imposition
.
of
a
penalty.
The
parties,
after consultation with affected residents, are given 75 days to
submit
a
compliance
plan
that
will
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Act
and
regulations.
Failure
of
the
parties,~after
consultation
with
the
affected
persons,
to
submit
within
.75 days an acceptable
plan
to
resolve
the
difficulties
at
the
site
before
the
onset
of
winter
weather
shall
result
in
the
Board’ s
imposing
upon
the
Respon-
dent
an
enforcement
order
consistent
with
the
facts
of
this
case.
The
Board
retains
jurisdiction
of
this
matter
while
the
parties
and
affected persons attempt to resolve the problems at
the subdivisions.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Board.
ORDER
IT IS THE ORDER of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
that:
1.
Respondent
violated
Section
18
of
the
Act,
certain
Rules
of
Chapter
Six,
and
Section
1
of
an
“Act
to
Regulate
the
Operating
of
a
Public
Water
Supply”
from
July
1,
1970,
until
June
7,
1974,
as set out more completely in the Opinion.
2.
The parties shall meet with residents supplied on a
regular basis with water from well No.
3 to work out a compliance
plan.
The plan
shall
satisfy
the
Act
and
regulations
as
well
as
meet the reasonable needs of
affected
persons.
A
copy
of
the
com-
pliance
plan
signed
by
the
parties,
after
consultation
with
the
affected
persons,
shall
be
filed
with
the
Board.
Failure
to
sub-
lit
within,
seventy
five
(75)
days
from
the
adoption
of
this
Order
a
plan
that
can
be
completed
during
the
warm
weather
months
of
this year will result in the
imposition
of
an
appropriate
Order
against the~
Respondent.
16—558
—5—
3.
The parties shall make reasonable efforts to meet with
residents supplied on
a regular basis with water from well No.
2
to try and correct problems resulting from activities of Mr.
Rokis during his operation of that well.
4.
The Board retains jurisdiction of this proceeding.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, heçeby certify that the above Opinion
nd Order was adopted
on the
~
day of May,
1975, by
a vote of
-O
Christan L. Moffet
,
Illinois Pollution C
ol Board
16
—559