ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

~ebruary 6, 1992

I~ONDERVIEW IMPROVEMENT

)

ASSOCIATION,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 91—48

(Enforcement)

NORTHERN ILLINOIS

)

UTILITIES,

INC.,

0

)

Respondent.

NR. DENNIS

3.

PALYS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT;

4R.

T.P. MATTHEWS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by R.C. Flemal):

This matter comes before the Board upon a complaint filed on

~.pril15,

1991 by Mr. Dennis J. Palys on behalf of the Wonder

c.riew.Improvement Association.

The complaint alleges that

respondent installed a “water main” without first obtaining a

construction permit from the Illinois Environmental Protection

~.gency(“Agency”), thereby violating the Board’s regulations

found at 35 Ill.

Adin.

Code 602.101’.

Hearing was held October 7,

1991,

in McHenry,

Illinois.

Much of the what has been alleged and counteralleged in this

~iatteris either irrelevant to the matter or not properly before

bhe Board.

The proper issue is solely whether respondent

~onunitteda violation of the Board’s regulations at 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 602.101.

That is the only issue that the Board will

address.

The pertinent facts in this matter are that in December 1990

respondent laid a piece of pipe,

of approximately 240 foot length

(Tr. 28), along Hickory Drive between Balsam and Elmwood Drives

in Wonder Lake,

Illinois.

At the time of placement the pipe was

riot connected,

and apparently has never been connected,

to any

Dther piping or to water distribution facilities.

A permit for

~onstruction of the piping has not been issued by the Agency.

The complaint also alleges violation of unspecified

tllinois Commerce Commission regulations and “guidelines of the

~cHenry Township Road District”

(April 15,

1991 response of

~oinplainant). The Board has no jurisdiction in either of these

~renas, and hence all such allegations are improperly brought

Defore this Board.

130—43

---

—2—

In pertinent part,

Section 602.101 prohibits the

“construction of any new public water supply installation” or

“the change or addition to any existing public water supply”

without a construction permit issued by the Agency.

The ~question

is therefore whether respondent’s actions constitute either

construction of a new public water supply installation or a

change or addition to any existing public water supply.

Inasmuch as the piping in question has never been connected

to or used in any public water supply context, this Board cannot

find that the piping constitutes either a new public water supply

installation or a change or addition to an existing public water

supply. ‘Accordingly, thismatter will be dismissed.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

The complaint brought before this Board in Docket PCB 91-48

is hereby dismissed.

Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act,

Ill.. Rev.

Stat.

1989 ch.

111 1/2 par.

1041,

provides for appeal of final

Orders of the Board within 35 days.

The Rules of the Supreme

Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M.

Gunn,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the aboveppinion and Order was

adopted on the

________

day of

____________________,

1992,

by

avoteof

__________

Dorothy N. ~qunn, Clerk

Illinois 4ilution Control Board

130—44