ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February 10,

1983

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Complainant,

PCB

81—157

ROME

WATER

WORKS,

iNCa,

Respondent.

H.

ALFRED

RYAN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY

GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF

COMPLAINANT, AND

PEGGY

SPIELMAN, SECRETARY~TREASUREROF ROME WATER WORKS, INC.,

ATTENDED HEARING 3/25/82 ON ITS

BEHALF,

OPINION

AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by 3,

Anderson):

This matter comes before the Board on the thirteen count

complaint filed October 13,

1981

by the Illinois Environ~enta1

Protection

Agency

(Agency).

The Complaint charges respondent

Rome

Waterworks,

Inc.

(Rome) with

various violations

of the Act

and Chapter

6:

Public Water Supplies

(Chapter 6) occuring between

1977 and

1981

arising out of its

operation of a public water

supply located

near Chillicothe in

Peoria County.

On April

1,

1982 the

Board

granted

the Agency~s

motion

to dismiss without

prejudice

Count VII of the Complaint

dealing with failure to

maintain a

fluoride ion concentration,

based on the order entered

I 11 inoi s

Pure

Water

Commission v. IDPH~IEPA,andAlton

Water

Co.,

No.

78

E

128, Madison Co.

(appeal

pending).

A tentative settlement

of

the

entire case was discussed

at

hearing

March 25,

1982,

but

no

settlement

was

filed~.

At another

hearing

held

September

30,

1982,

at which

again

no members of the public

were present, a signed

stipulation

and proposed settlement

agreement was presented.

This

proposed agreement

was filed with the Board October

15,

1982.

In

essence the proposal

provides that Rome has stipulated

to the

violations

alleged, has

agreed

to enter into and complete

a compliance

program, and to

pay a penalty

of $1000 in eighteen

installments

The

Rome public water supply

supplies a service population

of

280 people.

As of the time

of the proposed stipulation, the

operating

portions of the

system

51413

---

2

and

two pressure tanks having

respective gross capacities of

1,600 and 4,230 gallons~

A

third

17,600 gallon tank had been

installed, but no operating permits

had been issued and Rome

had

not confirmed whether the tank had

been operated.

The Complaint alleges violations of

various Agency Technical

Policy Statements

(TPS)

promulgated

pursuant to Rule 212(A) of

Chapter

6, and accordingly of the various

underlying provisions

of the Act and Chapter 6~ Count

I of the Complaint

alleges that

on

various dates in June

July,

1980 the supply~spositive water

pressure fell below the

20

pounds

per square inch required to

maintain an adequate and safe

supply.

Violations alleged are

of TPS 212

F,

and therefore of

Section 18 of the Act and Rule

308(B)

of Chapter 6~ Concerning

this,

Rome claims that to meet

Illinois Commerce Commission

criteria,

it will need to install

a third well, which

it proposes to

have

operational

July

1,

1983.

Count

II alleges that

TPS

212D.2

requires

a

pressure

storage

capacity of 35 gallons per

person,

which

computes

to

9,800

gallons

in Rome~s

case~ Since July,

1979, Rom&s capacity has been short

3,970

gallons,

based on the

capacity of the two permitted pressure

tanks,

in violati:on of

Section

18 of the Act and Rule 308(B).

Rome

proposes to correct

this

by applying for a permit for the

17,600

gallon tank and by

incorporating

it into its system.

Count

III alleged that

Rome had a cross-connection with a

private

well located at the

Rome Elementary School,

in violation

of

Section

18 of the Act and

Rules 314(A—C).

The stipulation

recites

that the cross—connection

was pulled and capped on

December 16,

1981.

County

IV alleged that

for

eleven monthly sampling periods,

between

January 14~ 1979 and

December

7,

1980,

Rome failed to

submit

water samples to the Agency

for

bacteriological analysis

and

failed to have a certified

laboratory

make such analyses

in

violation

of Sections

18 and 19

of the Act

and Rule 309(A)

as

implemented

in TPS 309A~

Count

V alleges

that for the same

periods

Rome failed to give public

notification of these failures

in

violation

of Sections

18 and 19

of the Act and Rule 313(0).

Count VI alleges that on

July

11,

1979, November 14,

1979

and

February

6,

1980 the free

chlorine residuals specified in

TPS

3050.2

were not achieved,

resulting

in a violation of Section

18

of

the

Act and Rule 305,

The

stipulation recites that on

these

days the total chlorine

residual

was

0,0

mg/i.

As

Count VII was dismissed,

no

purpose

is

served

by

reciting

facts

concerning this Count,

Count

VIII

alleges

that Rome failed

to submit

fluoride content

samples to

the Agency

in 14 specified

months

between 1979 and 1981

as

required by TPS 306(B)(1),

in

violation

of Sections

18 and

19

51-114

---

3

Cou~it~

~id K alleje that

since on or before May,

1977,

Rome

has f~itedto submit daily

operational records

for

fluoride

and

chlo

Ue trea ment as set

forth respectively in

TPS

3066.2

and

TPS

3~J 2~

v~o1ation

of Section

18

of

the

Act

and

Rule

310A

of

(Ii

~er 6

count XI

and XII respectively allege

that

on

specified

~

n

~9”9-1981,

Rome failed to have

a

functioning

master

wa ~

‘net~ as ~equired

by TPS

306A,11 and TPS

212A,

in

violation

~

oi ~8 of the

Act, and failed

to have a water

sight

gla~’ ~n~rt

~d

un its

1,600 gallon

pressure tank as

required b

T9S 30~A,I2, in

violation

of Section 19

of the Act.

Count

XIi~

~

~g~s

tAut on

4

specified

dates

in 1977—1981,

Rome

failed

to

~uie sriooth~’nosed

sampling

taps on its well discharge

lines

(so

~ir~:

presen~ac~~e

untreated water samples can be

collected

::CCA:

Irw~

tee

wells

for analysis)

as required by

TPS

306A

1~

~

fLoJat1~uof

Section 19 of the Act.

In

cv

~:~i:1g

th~sproposed

settlement

in the light of

Section

33

of :u~Act

the

Board finds that Respondent has

committed I

~e al ~

‘~iolcttions,

and further finds that the

compliance

rran

and

stipulated

$1,000 penalty are an acce~tahle

resolution

I

~cr~

ma~le:.

The

Board’s Order will not contain a

finding

of

i

o~au~on01 the TPS,

or

Recommended

Standards

for

Water

Work~ ~rcoiporated

in.

various

TPS by reference, but will

find

violat

n~only of the

underlying

Board rules and Sections of

the Act.

Tic Lhc~dnotes that

many of the dates

for correction of

equipment

O~thctenc~e~

are long

past

(e.g. May, June,

1982),

and

that the Co

cher

,

1982 date

for payment of the first 18 monthly

penalty

in~~c1 rcrt~Inc passed

before filing of the stipulation.

The Board

‘

ad~jtst ~hese

compliance plan dates, assuming

they

have

~r

cc

~

~c~th

Payment of the penalty will be

ordered

t~

~983,

however,

as

it would be unfair

to penalis

In~n:~n

an4

non—payment

since October of a proposed

penalty

orIn

‘~

accepted.

This

r.

Iute~

the findings

of fact and conclusions

of

law

of

~c

I ~

in

Allis

matter.

ORDER

1.

w:sçcnc

rd

Pone

Waterworks,

Inc.,

is

found

to

have

violated

Sc~t~c,n.s18 end 19 of

the

Environmental Protection Act

and

Rules

3~5 388(B),

309(A),

313(D)

and 314(A—C)

of Chapter

6:

Public

Watci

i~ppAies

2.

Pe~j

etc. ~ sLa~I

~omply

with

the compliance plan

contained

tIn

~tip

Int on of

Facts

and Proposed Settlement

dated

Septe~cr

2t

19In and

filed

October 15,

1982, which is

incorporatcd

~y rIncrer~celerein

as

if fully set forth,

51-115

---

4

3.

Respondent shall pay a stipulated penalty of $1,000,

payable in 17 monthly installments of $56.00 and an eighteenth

installment of $48.00, beginning on March 1,

1983.

Checks shall

be made payable to “The State of Illinois” and mailed to:

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Fiscal Services

Section

2200 Churchill

Road

Springfield,

IL

62706

IT

IS SO ORDERED,

Chairman

J.D.

Dumelle

concurred.

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control

Board, hereby

gertify that~the~above Opinion and Order

was adop~k~c1~on

the

~

day of

t~.

,

1983 by a

vote of

~,

,\

Illinois Pollution

ol

Board