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
consisted of two drilled wells,
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
of the Act.
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
51-116