ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October
    14
    •
    1976
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 76—148
    VET’S PLACE SUBDIVISION HOME-
    OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION
    )
    Respondent.
    Mr.
    Stephen Gunning, Technical Advisor, Mr.
    Richard Gerard,
    Engineer, and Mr. Franklin Lewis,
    Regional Manager, Region
    3,
    Department of Public Water Supplies,
    appeared on behalf of
    the Complainant.
    Mr. John Stoecker appeared on behalf of Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Dr. Satchell)
    This matter comes before the Pollution Control Board
    (Board)
    upon
    a complaint filed on May 12,
    1976 by the Environmental
    Protection Agency
    (Agency)
    alleging that Respondent owns and
    operates
    a public water supply serving approximately
    85 people
    in Vet’s Place Subdivision, R.R.#l, Chillicothe,
    Peoria County,
    Illinois.
    The complaint further alleges that Respondent’s
    public water supply consists of one dri~~I well,
    a distri-
    bution system and a pressure storage tank which Respondent
    has failed
    to chlorinate since December 21,
    1975
    in violation
    of Rule 305 of the Chapter
    6: Public Water Supply Regulations
    (hereinafter Requlations).
    A
    hear inq
    was
    held
    in this maLLer on Au~unL
    ~
    ,
    1~976
    at
    Peoria,
    Illinois.
    AL
    the
    hearing
    John
    L.
    ~ Loockc’r,
    V ice—Pros
    i—
    dent
    of
    the
    Vet’s
    Place
    Subdivision
    Homeowners’
    Association,
    testified that there is no chlorination being fed into the
    water supply
    (R.
    8,
    10).
    Mr. Stoecker became aware of
    the
    requirement when he became Vice—President six months before
    the hearing
    (R.
    10)
    .
    Someone in the Association informed him
    of the requirement
    (R.
    10)
    .
    An enforcement notice was sent
    to the Association
    (Comp. Ex.
    1).
    Implementation
    of chlori-
    nation has been discussed in the organization; however,
    the
    Association has taken no action
    (R.
    11).
    The Subdivision
    has regularly submitted water samples
    to the Agency and there
    is no complaint that there has been contaminated water
    (R.
    15)
    The Water Association apparently
    feels absent evidence of
    24
    —
    57
    —2-
    contamination that there is no need for chlorination
    (R.
    38)
    The
    Board
    finds
    that
    Respondent
    has
    violated Rule 305
    of the Regulations
    by
    failing
    to chlorinate
    its water.
    Prior to assessment of
    a penalty the Board must consider the
    factors of Section
    33(c)
    of the Act,
    To date the water
    samples
    of the Subdivision have not indicated any contami-
    nation
    (R.
    15).
    As of yet there has been no injury to the
    community.
    There is no question that
    a safe water supply
    is a necessity to the 24 homes served by the distribution
    system
    (R. 9).
    The suitability of the sources
    location is
    not in
    issue.
    An Agency witness estimated
    the chlorination
    system could be installed
    for $500 to $l~000 (P.
    33).
    Up
    to the last elections the Association was chargirip two
    dollars per month for service
    (R.
    47)
    .
    The rate has now
    been increased to five dollars per month
    (P.
    49)
    .
    The
    Secretary and President of the Association do not pay
    (P.
    48).
    This would give the Association approximatei2~$1,200 per year
    to run.
    The Board finds that the chlorHation
    of the supply
    system
    is technically and economically
    rccisor~ah1o.
    The Board finds that Respondent’s ~cJiherate
    delay
    in
    compliance warrants the assessment of
    penalLy
    for the
    violation of Rule
    305.
    The Respondent was informed of its
    public duty to safeguard its water supply,
    but apparently
    decided to substitute its own judgment and exoerience with
    regard to the distribution system over
    the exeerience and
    expertise behind the regulations invcinod.
    The regulations
    are based upon extensive experience tiw
    :nut the State,
    and their purpose
    is
    to keep all public: water supplies
    in
    a
    safe and sanitary condition.
    The Boa:ci, therefore,
    assesses
    a penalty of $200 to aid in the enforcement of the Board’s
    regulations.
    Respondent shall
    chlorinahe
    its water supply
    in
    compliance
    with
    Rule
    305
    and
    sh~i~
    1
    e’’n~’
    md
    I~H
    ;i
    I u un
    V
    I
    ()
    This
    Opinion
    constitutes
    the Board’s
    I indings
    of
    fact
    and
    conclusions of law.
    ORDER
    It
    is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:
    1.
    Respondent
    is found to be in violation of Rule
    305
    of Chapter
    6: Public Water Supply Regulations.
    24
    —
    58
    —3—
    2.
    Respondent shall chlorinate its public water
    supply system in coinlilulce with Rule 305 of
    Chapter
    6.
    3.
    Respondent shall cease and desist future viola-
    tions
    of the Regulations within ninety
    (90)
    days.
    4.
    Respondent shall pay a penalty of $200 within
    35 days of this Order.
    Payment shall be made
    by certified check or money order payable to:
    State of Illinois
    Environmental Protection Agency
    Fiscal Services Division
    2200 Churchill Road
    Springfield,
    Illinois 62706
    I, Christan
    L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify the above Oninion and Order
    were adopted on the
    ~
    day
    of
    ~
    1976 by a
    vote of
    -
    Cur
    i
    eLan
    L.
    Met
    eLI.,
    ~1ork
    .1 Ilinois
    Pollu
    t
    loin
    ~onLroI
    Board
    24
    —
    59

    Back to top