ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 14, 1986
RICHARD F~FARMER (McHENRY
COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL
DISTRICT
15) AND ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Complainants,
v1
)
PCB 84—149
MATTHEW
J,1
STAHL AND EASTWOOD
MANOR WATER CO~.,
Respondents~
DALE AND MARCIA
i’IAULE,
Complainants,
v,
)
PCB 84—152
MR~ AND f4RS~ MATTHEW STAHL,
Respondents~
CHERYL LOCKWOOD A~DILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Complainants,
v~
)
PCB 84—153
MATTHEW J~, STAHL, PATRICIA
M,,
)
(Consolidated)
STAHL,
AtW
EASTWOOD
MANOR
WATER
CO~.,
)
Respondents~
DR,~ RICHARD F~FARMER APPEARED PRO SE
ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT
MCHENRY COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT 15.
MR.
GARY LOCKWOOD APPEARED
ON BEHALF OF
CO’4PLAINANT CHERYL
LOCKWOOD.
MR. MATTHEW J,
STAHL APPEARED PRO SE ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS.
—2—
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by R,
C.
Flemal):
These matters come before the Board
as the result of three
separate citizen complaints.
The matter
of PCB 84—149 was filed
on SeDtember
24, 1984;
the matter of PCB 84—152 was filed
on
October
5,
1984;
the matter of PCB 84—153 was filed on October
4,
1985.
By Order
of the Board
on October
25,
1984, the three
complaints were found
to be non—frivolous and were set for
hearing.
In the same Order
the Board consolidated
the actions.
At the time of the original filings, the several
complainants were residents
of,
or had interest in,
the area
served by Eastwood Manor Water Company
(“EMCO”),
EMCO is an
Illinois corporation engaged
in the business of operating and
maintaining
a public water supply facility within McHenry County,
Illinois.
EMCO supplies water
to residences, businesses,
and
at
least one school.
Respondent Matthew
J,
Stahl
is President and
owner
of EMC3; Respondent Patricia M.
Stahl
is Secretary and
owner
of EMCO,
Hearing was held September
3,
1985,
at
the McHenry City
Hall,
McHenry County,
Illinois,
Complainants presented witnesses
Cheryl Rudd, Kathryn Schacht,
and Cheryl Lockwood,
residents
of
EMCO’s service area, John Nilles and Richard Farmer, McHenry
Consolidated School District 15 officials,
and Emmanuel Abad,
environmental engineer with
the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency.
Respondent testimony was presented
by Donald Sullivan,
employee of EMCO, and Patricia M,
Stahl,
Two members of the
public, Walter Kuck,
resident
of EMCO’s service area,
and Frances
Larsen, District
15 School Board Member,
also presented “comment”
at the hearing*,
An additional member
of the public, Thomas
J.
Breen,
Jr.,
resident of the EMCO service area,
supplied written
comment by letter
filed September
5,
1985,
Complainant Cheryl
Lockwood filed
a post hearing brief on November
26, 1985,
A
reply
brief
was filed
by Respondents
on January 21,
1936, which
was several weeks
after
the date for submittal agreed to by
Respondents at hearing.
However,
the Board grants Respondents’
January
3,
1986 motion for extension of
time to file
reply
brief,
Complainant
filed
a response
to the
reply brief on
February
3,
1986,
Disposition
of PCB 84—149
In PCB 84—149, Complainant and Superintendent
of McHenry
Community Consolidated School District
15, 3926
W,
Main, McHenry,
Illinois,
Dr.
Richard
F.
Farmer,
alleges
that EMCO failed
to
*The Board notes
that there
is
no provision
in its procedural
rules allowing public comment per
se
at enforcement hearings.
35
Ill,
Adm.
Code 103.203 allows interested petsons
to either submit
written statements prior
to hearing,
or
to be sworn
in as
witnesses and give testimony relevant to the case.
—3—
advise any responsible person at Hilltop School,
2615
W. Lincoln
Road, McHenry,
Illinois,
or
the District Central Administration
of
a boil warning
issued on Thursday September
6,
1984,
or Friday
September
7,
1984,
and still
in effect on Monday September
10,
1984,
The complaint
further alleges that EMCO’s lack
of
advisement caused the school
to jeopardize
the health
of 435
children for
at least
two days.
Dr.
Farmer seeks that EMCO
properly warn school officials
in the event
of any subsequent
similar events, and requests an Order of
the Board
to this
effect,
namely:
That
the Eastwood Manor
Water Company be directed
to advise
appropriate school authorities directly of all IEPA warnings
or orders which could harm ot
affect the health of our
students.
(R,
at
7),
Dr.
FarmeL stipulated
that he seeks
no additional relief
beyond that specified
in his requested Order
of
the Board
(R,
at
8).
Mr. Matthew
3.
Stahl further
stipulated
that he
takes
no
issue with Dr. Farmerts
requested Order
of
the Board
(R.
at
7).
The Board
notes
that notification of the type requested
by Dr.
Farmer
is reasonable, given
the intent of Board regulation 35
Ill.
Adm, Code 607.103,
and accordingly
finds
that complainant’s
request
is fully appropriate,
The Board accordingly will order
that respondent Matthew
3,
Stahl
and the EMCO Water Company
comply with the requirements
of
35
Ill. Adm,
Code 607,103.
Disposition
of PCB 84—152
In the matter
of PCB 84—152,
testimony presented
at hearing
indicates that Complainants Dale and Marcia Maule, who formerly
resided at 1409 Fairview Lane, McHenry,
Illinois,
no longer
reside
in EMCO’s
service area,
The Maules failed
to appear
at
hearing and have made
no contribution
to the record subsequent
to
their original filing of October
5,
1984,
Respondent Matthew
J.
Stahl moved
at hearing that the complaint accordingly be
dismissed for lack
of prosecution.
The motion
is granted*,
PCB 84—153
With these matters
resolved,
there
remains the matter
of PCB
84—153,
In this action Complainant Cheryl Lockwood, who resides
at 1319 Hillside Lane, McHenry, McHenry County,
Illinois,
alleges
violation of sections
of the Illinois Environmental Protection
Act (“Act”) and Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations
promulgated thereunder
on the part of Respondents Matthew
3.
Stahl, Patricia
M.
Stahl,
and EMCO Water Company.
*At hearing,
the Hearing Officer
in this matter incotrectly
ruled
on this motion,
35
Ill, Adm,
Code 103.140 requires that all
motions
to dismiss
ot
strike a claim be directed
to the Board.
—4—
The first allegation
(hereafter “Count
I”) asserts that
since at least
1976 and continuing
through
the present
time
Respondents have engaged
in
a course of conduct which has been
violative
of Section
18 of the Act
(Ill.
Rev,
Stat.
ch,
lil_1/2,
§1018
(1983)) and of
35
Ill.
Adm, Code
302,303 and 601.101,
Section 18 of
the Act and §601,101 contain language identical
in
substance,
specifically that:
Owners and official custodians
of public water supplies
shall direct and maintain continuous operation and
maintenance of water—supply facilities
so that the water
shall
be assuredly safe
in quality, clean,
adequate
in
quantity,
and
of satisfactory mineral character
for ordinary
domestic consumption,
35
Ill.
Adii.
Code 302.303 specifies standards fot Public and
Food Processing Water Supplies,
specifically:
Water
shall
be of such quality that with treatment
consisting of coagulation,
sedimentation,
filtration,
storage
and chlorination,
or other equivalent
treatment
processes,
the treated water
shall meet
in all respects the
requirements
of Part
604.
The second allegation
(hereafter
“Count
II”)
asserts that
Respondents have violated
35
Ill, Adm, Code 604,201(a)*, which
relates
to the geneLal chemical and physical character
of
finished water
and states that:
“The finished water
shall contain no
impurity
in
concentrations
that may be hazardous to the health of the
consumer
or excessively corrosive
OL
otherwise deleterious
to the water
supply,
Drinking water shall
contain no
impurity which
could reasonably be expected to cause offense
to the sense of sight,
taste,
or smell”,
The third allegation
(hereafter
“Count III”) asserts
that
Respondents have violated
35
Ill, Adm, Code 606,201, which
requires
that public notice be given within
a maximum of three
months
to persons serviced when
a community water supply fails
to
comply with an applicable maximum allowable concentration
established
in 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 604.
*The Board
notes
that
in
its post hearing brief Complainant
generalizes
this allegation
to include §604,201(b),
as well as
the originally cited §604,201(a).
In
as much
as section
(b) was
not listed
in the original complaint and no specific citation to
this section was made
at hearing,
the Board declines
to give
further consideration
to the matter
of possible §604,201(b)
violations.
—5—
The fourth allegation
(hereafter “Count IV”)
asserts that
Respondents have on
at least two occasions violated
35
Ill,
Adm.
Code 607,103(b), which requires that a boil
order
be
issued by
the owner
or official custodian
of the water
supply when water
pressure falls below twenty pounds per square inch (“psi”)
on any
portion of
the distribution system,
such
requirement being
exempted under
specific conditions which Complainant argues have
not been met.
The final allegation (hereafter
“Count V”) asserts
that
Respondents have on at least
two occasions violated
35
Ill, Adm.
Code 607,103(c), which requires
that the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
(“Agency”)
be notified whenever
the safety of
a
water
supply
is endangered
for any reason,
At hearing, Respondents objected
to the admission of
Complainant’s Exhibits F—R
(R.
at
150),
as well
as
to the
admissability of
the testimony of Emmanuel Abad,
a witness who
testiEied
for Complainant
(R.
at
188),
Respondents’
objection
to
the admission of Exhibits F—R was based on their belief that
these documents should have been submitted
to them prior
to
hearing
in response to the interrogatories served by them unto
Complainant.
Respondents also objected
to
the testimony of
Emmanuel Abad being classified as
“expert” testimony,
arguing
that he was not qualified
to give testimony of
that character,
The Hearing Officer overruled both of these objections,
finding
that Exhibits F—R were admissable as business records pursuant to
35
Ill, Adm, Code 103,208
(R,
at
147),
and that Emmanuel Abad was
sufficiently qualified
to deliver
testimony as
an expett witness
(R,
at 160—1),
The Board
finds
that the Hearing Officer acted
correctly,
and therefore affirms both
of the rulings made at
hearing.
Counts
I and II
Because
of their similar nature Counts
I and
II shall
be
discussed jointly; both deal with
the character
of the water
supplied
by EMCO.
Firstly,
the Board notes
that the intent of
35
Ill, Adm,
Code 302.303
is
to safeguard
raw water
supplies such that, with
the specified processing,
they are capable
of providing
a
suitable finished water.
As the “Scope and Applicability”
section
of the preceding §302.301 notes,
the standards
of §302
are
to be met “at any point
at which water
is withdrawn for
treatment and distribution
as
a potable supply or for food
processing”.
In as much
as there have been
no allegations that
the raw water
is inherently unsuitable
for use as
a water supply
or
that Respondents have contributed
to despoiling
of the raw
water such as
to make
it unsuitable
for development
into
a
finished water, the Board
finds that there
is
no demonstration of
violation of
35
Ill.
Adm,
Code 302.303.
—6—
Complainant asserts that there
is
a long—standing history of
water problems
in the EMCO service area including problems of
odor,
color,
taste,
and quantity,
and presented several witnesses
who testified
in support thereof.
Cheryl Rudd, whose home
is
serviced by EMCO,
testified that at various times during the
eight years she has lived
in her home the water has had a strong
chlorine smell, has been an off—color ranging from “light yellow
to
a dark
rusty color”, and has been “fizzy”
and
“cloudy”
(R.
at
24—5),
Mrs. Rudd also noted that she has discovered sediment
in
water
which has been allowed
to sit,
such as
in the toilet bowls,
and that her home has experienced periods of both low and no
water
pressure
(R.
at
25—6),
Mrs.
Rudd observed that these
problems with the water supply occur
“almost on
a weekly basis”
(R,
at
25—6),
Kathy Schacht,
also
a resident of
the
EMCO service area,
gave very similar testimony regarding the character of the water
supplied
to her home
by EMC3~
She stated that water delivered
to
her household has been orange
(R,
at
33), has had rust or cloudy
whitish
sediments in
it
(R.
at
33),
and has occasionally had
a
strong chlorine or
“rotten egg”
smell
(R,
at
33,
36),
Ms.
Schacht mentioned that she has also experienced low water
pressure
in her system
(R,
at
34), and has had clothing become
yellowed after washing
(R,
at
34—5).
Ms.
Schacht admitted that
changing the filter
on her water softener did improve,
for
a
time,
the low pressure condition
in her water system
(R,
at
37),
Complainant Cheryl Lockwood testified that during
the time
she has lived within the EMCO service area, water delivered
to
her home has been orange
(R.
at
43), had both chlorine and egg—
type smells
(R,
at
43),
and has had sediment material
of
a white
or rust—colored nature
in it
(R,
at
43),
Complainant’s home has
also had periods
of both low water pressure and
a comolete lack
of water
(R,
at 44—5),
Complainant also testified that the
problems associated with the water delivered
to her home have
caused approximately
20 pieces of clothing and a set of sheets
to
become ruined in the wash
(R,
at 45).
Unlike the other residents
of the EMCO service
area who testified
in this matter,
Complainant additionally noted that several years ago
a “gaseous”
odor emanated for
a time from the water delivered
to her home
(R.
at 50—4),
Walter
Kuck,
a resident of EMCO’s service area, attended the
hearing held
in this case and made
a statement for the record at
the close of
the hearing.
Mr.
Kuck stated that his water
is
“smelly”,
and
said that the smell
is not
a rotten egg odor but
rather more analogous
to
“a locker room of
a gymnasium when
it
hasn’t been aired out for
a week”
(R,
at
291),
Mr. Kuck has also
experienced low water pressure,
and water with
a fizzy character
(R.
at
292,
294),
and noted
that the water problems occur
“three,
four,
five times
a week”
(R,
at
294),
—7—
The Board
finds Respondents
in violation
of §18 of the Act
and of
35
Ill. Mm.
Code 601,101,
Testimony presented
at hearing
by four witnesses conclusively showed that the water delivered by
EMCO to its customers
is
frequently not clean, adequate
in
quantity,
nor
of sufficient mineral characteristic for ordinary
domestic consumption.
Although no chemical analysis
of the water
was undertaken by any of the witnesses,
it is obvious
that water
which
is fizzy,
orange
in color,
or
contains flakes
of sediment
does not meet the criteria established
in §18 and 601.101,
Similarly,
the Board
finds Respondents
to have vioalted 35
Ill,
Adm, Code
604,201(a)
because, contrary to the requirements of
that section, water provided
by EMCO caused offense
to the sight,
taste,
and/or
smell of each of Respondent’s customers who
testified at hearing.
Count
III
Complainant alleges that EMCO violated the provisions
of
35
Ill. Mm.
Code 606.201 by failing
to notify
its customers within
the prescribed three month period that the company’s delivered
water had failed
to meet the
1.0 mg/l maximum allowable
concentration
for
iron,
Testimony
at hearing of Respondent
Patricia
M.
Stahl
indicated that EMCO received notice
of the high
iron level from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”)
in
a letter from the Agency dated May
9,
1984;
Mrs.
Stahl testified
that receipt was made within
a week
or less
thereafter
(R,
at
249),
Mrs.
Stahl indicated that she sent the
required notices along with EMCO’s August billing,
but was
“approximately
a week or two late” and did not mail the notices
until “probably the 21st
or
25th”
(R,
at
251),
Cheryl Lock~iood
stated that she received
a copy of the notice sometime
in
September,
1984
(R,
at
60),
Though the dates testified to by Patricia Stahl
and Cheryl
Lockwood are somewhat contradictory,
and the period of
time in
which notice was delayed
rather
short,
the Board must
nevertheless find Respondents
to have violated §606,201,
That
section clearly delineates
the responsibility of
a community
water supply
in this situation,
and EMCO failed
to fulfill that
responsibility by neglecting to provide the required notice
to
its customers within the allowable three month period.
Count
IV
Complainant further alleges that Respondents violated
35
Ill. Adm. Code 607,103(b)
by failing on April
8, 1982*
and
September
6,
1934 to issue boil orders
to its customers as
a
consequence of water pressure
in the EMCO system falling below
20
psi,
Donald Sullivan,
an EMCO employee,
testified that water
*This
is the date which appears
in paragraph
8 of the complaint,
but paragraph
9 of the complaint,
as well
as Complainant’s
Exhibits H and J,
indicate that the correct date should be April
8,
1983,
—8—
pressure
in
a portion of
the system dropped
to 18—20 psi
in
April,
1983
(R,
at
231),
Notwithstanding
this admission,
Respondents did not issue a boil order
as
a result of the April,
1983 incident,
Complainant’s Exhibit
3
is
a letter
from
Mr.
Wayne Wiemerslage, an Agency attorney,
to personnel of the
Agency,
the Illinois Commerce Commission,
and the McHenry County
Health Department.
In this letter Mr. Wiemerslage discusses
a
conversation he had with Mrs.
Stahl
on August
25,
1933,
in which
she admitted EMCO did not issue
a boil
order
on April
8,
1983,
As persons
affiliated with EMCO have admitted that
a boil order
was not issued on April
8,
1983, when conditions warranting such
an order
were
in existence,
the Board
finds that on that occasion
EMCO violated §607,103(b).
Mr.
Sullivan further
testified that on September
6,
1984
pressure
in the system did not drop below
20 psi
(R,
at
227),
Howver,
Cheryl Lockwood testified that on September
6,
1984 the
water pressure
at her home was zero (i.e.,
that no water was
being delivered to the home whatsoever),
She
further
stated that
Mr. Leonard Lindstrom of the Agency came out to the area the next
day to conduct sampling,
and while
there
told her
that
a boil
order was
in effect
for users
of the EMCO system
(R,
at
66),
Dr.
Richard Farmer, Superintendent of
Mdllenry Community
Consolidated School District
15,
testified that he first heard
of
the September
6,
1984 boil order
from Mr. John Nilles, who was
then principal
of
a grade school located
in the EMCO service
area.
Mr.
Nilles became aware of the situation through
a
conversation with
a student who said a police car had driven
through his neighborhood the previous day announcing
the order
(R.
at 114—5),
Neither
Dr.
Farmer nor
Mr. Nilles
received any
notice from EMCO that
a boil order was
in effect.
The Board
finds Respondents
to have violated §607,103(b)
on
September
6,
1984.
Although Complainant failed
to offer
or
elicit any evidence of
a scientific measurement showing less than
20 psi
of pressure
in the EMCO system on the date
in question,
the conclusion
that such a condition occurred can easily be drawn
when
it
is shown,
as was done here,
that homes
in the service
area had
no water pressure at the time,
Moreover,
the Board may
infer
from the boil order
implemented by the Agency that pressure
in the system fell
below
20
psi,
It should be noted that
§607,103(b) provides that
a boil order need not
be issued under
the circumstances of this case
if
three conditions,
set out
in
§607,103(b)(l)—(3), are met,
Respondents have offered
no
evidence
in this case, however,
indicating that these conditions
were or
could have been complied with on September
6,
1984.
Thus, EMCO was obligated
to issue
a boil order
as a result
of the
September
6,
1984 occurrence of low pressure
in its system.
—9—
Count V
Finally, Complainant contends that Respondents violated
35
Ill. Adm, Code 607,103(c)
by failing on April
8, 1983 and on
September
6,
1984 to notify the Agency that the safety of the
water supply was endangered.
In both of
the instances noted,
it
was not EMCO or any of
its employees who notified
the Agency,
but
rather
users of the EMCO system who directly or
indirectly caused
the Agency to become
aware
and consequently involved,
Regarding
the April
1983 incident, residents first complained
of low
pressure
to
an official
of the McHenry County Health Department,
who
in turn notified the Agency (Complainant’s Ex. H).
The
Agency first became aware of the September
1984 incident as
a
result
of
a call placed by Marcia
£4aule to the Agency
(R,
at
63).
The Board
finds that Respondents violated §607.103(c)
by
failing
to give proper notice
to the Agency regarding the April
8,
1983 and September
6,
1984 incidents.
Findings and Penalty
The Board
finds
that the nature of violations
of the Act and
the Board’s regulations
as committed by the Respondents are of
such nature as
to offer
a potentially serious threat
to the
health and welfare of
the citizens served by EMCO.
Accordingly,
the Board will order that Respondents take immediate operational
steps
to prevent additional violations.
Additionally,
the Board
finds
that
it
is necessary that EMCO immediately begin
a program
to identify and implement permanent remedial measures designed to
ensure continued compliance with the Act and the Board’s
regulations.
Such program shall address all areas
in which
Respondents have been found herein
to be
in violation,
A
schedule for
this program
is set out in the following Order.
The
Board will
retain jurisdiction
in this matter
to assure
that the
program obligation
is met.
In reflecting
on the question of
the penalty to
be imposed
on EMCO,
the Board has considered
the factors enumerated
in
§33(c)
of the Act,
These are the character and degree
of injury
to,
or
interference with the protection of the health, general
welfare,
and physical property of the people;
the social and
economic value
of the pollution source;
the suitability or
unsuitability of the pollution source to the area
in which
it
is
located, including the question
of priority of location
in the
area involved; and the technical practicability and economic
reasonableness of reducing
or eliminating
the emissions,
discharges
or deposits resulting from such pollution source,
The Board weighed several other
factors before arriving
at
a
final
resolution of the penalty issued
Among
these
is the fact
that EMCO
is
a small,
family—owned community water supply which
serves
fewer than 500 customers (Respondent’s Post Hearing Reply
Brief,
p.
1),
Second,
there
is
the question of whether
a penalty
is necessary
in this situation
to aid
in the enforcement of the
Act,
or whether
a series
of conditions
imposed upon Respondents,
without penalty, would
accomplish the same purpose.
—10—
The Board
finds that due
to the varied
and
repetitious
character
of the violations committed by Respondents, imposition
of
a $1,000 penalty
is necessary to aid in the enforcement of the
Act,
The additional obligations
the Board
today imposes
on EMCO
will necessitate Agency involvement
in this matter,
as Agency
expertise and oversight will
be needed
to insure that
the tasks
imposed
on EMCO will achieve fruitful
results,
The Board
is
therefore adding
the Agency
as
a necessary party pursuant
to
35
Ill. Adm. Code 103.121.
As provided by 35
Ill. Adm, Code
103.240,
the Agency will have 35 days from
the
date of
this Order
to file
a motion,
if
it so desires, requesting modification of
the role
it
is being
asked
to assume by the Board.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s
findings of fact and
conclusions
of law in this matter,
ORDER
1,
The Board
finds
that the Eastwood Manor Water Company
has violated section 18
of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act and
35
Ill,
Adm, Code 601,101,
604,201(a), 606.201, 607,103(b),
and 607,103(c).
2,
The Eastwood Manor Water Company shall
cease and desist
from additional violations
of the Act and the Board’s
regulations, and shall take immediate operational steps
to prevent additional violations,
3,
Per
stipulation of
the parties, the Eastwood Manor Water
Company
is ordered
to advise authorities of McHenry
Community Consolidated School District No,
15 directly
of all Illinois Environmental Protection Agency warnings
or orders which could harm or affect
the health of the
District’s students,
4,
The
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
is hereby
added as
a necessary party
to this matter pursuant
to
35
Ill.
Adm, Code
103.121,
5.
Within 90 days from the date
of this Order Respondents
shall submit a written plan addressing remedial actions
to be undertaken
in each of the areas which resulted
in
violation of
the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
or
the Board’s
regulations.
—11—
Respondents shall submit the plan
to Complainant Cheryl
Lockwood
and the following persons:
Ms. Dorothy
M, Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
State of Illinois Center
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11—500
Chicago,
IL
60601
Mr. Wayne Wiemerslage
Attorney
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Springfield,
IL
62706
6.
After
receipt of Respondent’s remedial plan,
the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency shall, within
90 days after
receiving such plan,
submit
a response
to
the plan.
The response may,
in the Agency’s discretion,
contain any revisions which the Agency determines
to be
necessary
in order
to prevent the occurrence of
future
violations
on the part of Eastwood Manor Water
Company,
The Agency
shall submit copies
of
its response
to the Board,
Complainant Cheryl Lockwood and
Respondents
in this matter.
7,
r~j~jjj~
60 days after Respondents’ receipt of the Agency
comments,
the matter
shall come before
the Board
for
final disposition
of this matter.
At that time the
parties may submit written comments
regarding the
appropriateness
of Respondents’ remedial plan
and/or
the
changes made by
the Agency to the plan.
8.
Within six months
after
issuance of the Board’s
final
Opinion and Order
in
this matter, Respondents shall
implement the provisions of the plan
as approved by the
Board,
9.
~ithin 60 days of the date
of this Order,
the Eastwood
Manor Water Company shall,
by certified check
or money
order,
pay
a civil penalty of $1,000 payable
to the
State
of Illinois and designated
for deposit into the
Environmental Protection Trust Fund,
Such payment shall
be sent to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
IL
62706
10.
The
Board retains jurisdiction
in this matter.
11.
PCB 84—152
is dismissed,
—12—
IT
IS
SO ORDERED,
Joan Anderson concurred.
I, Dorothy
M.
Gunn, Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
/~/‘~‘
day of ~
,
1936,
by
a vote of
7—~
~.
~
Dorothy
M, tunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
