ILJIdNOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August IA,

1975

CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT,

an Illinois Not—For-Profit Corporation,

Complainant,

V.

)

PCB 74—367

CITIZENS UTILITIES COMPANY OF ILLINOIS,

)

an Illinois Corporation,

Respondent.

Mr. Dennis Adamczyk and Mr. Sherwood L.

Levin appeared on behalf

of Complainant,

Mr.

Daniel Kucera appeared on behalf of Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Dumelle):

Complainant filed

a formal complaint on October

10,

1974

alleging that Respondent had violated Section 18 of the

Environmental Protection Act and certain of the Water Pollution

Regulations by distributing water with excessive iron content.

The complaint was amended on November 14, 1974 and further

amended on February

27,

1975.

Three days of hearing were held.

Following

the presentation of Complainant’s case

in

chief

(with

the exception of one adverse witness)

the parties entered

into a settlement.

The terms of the proposed settlement were

presented at a public hearing on June

5,

1975.

The parties

agreed to the settlement to avoid the necessity of undertaking

protracted litigation,

and because

it represented what they felt

to be the most cost effective means of solving the iron problem.

The proposed settlement would seem to have merit

in abating the

substantial discoloration due to excessive iron content

in the

water supplied by Respondent.

The parties have asked the Board to approve the settlement

stipulation based on evidence presented by Complainant during

the three days of hearings.

The parties have agreed that approval

by the Board of the settlement would be determinative and res

judicata of the matters raised in the complaint.

The parties submitted a settlement and stipulation at the

18—

342

---

—2—

third

day

of

hearing held on June

5,

1975.

Under

the

settier~ent,~

Respondent

agreed

to contract with an environmental engineering

firm to evaluate

thE~

use of sodium silicate to control the

visual problem of “red water” associated with high iron content

from Respondent’s wells.

The parties agreed to accept the terms

and conditions of the stipulation if the engineering report was

favorable.

On June 25,

1975 the engineering report was submitted

to

Respondent.

The ieport recommends

that Respondent

use

the wells

with the lowest iron level, always operate the wells to avoid

high iron levels associated with well startup,

and never allow

untreated water to enter the system.

The report recommends the

addition of sodium silicate to achieve

a concentration of

23 ppm

(parts per million), periodic mcchanical flushing of the system,

and a possible reduction of residual chlorine concentration

to assure levels below 1.0 ppm.

While the parties have not formally stated that they find the

engineering analysis of the use of sodium silicate to be favorable,

we construe the submittal

of the report as such an approval.

Based

upon the nature of the problem as presented during three days of

hearings and the engineering report, we find that the proposed use of

sodium silicate to be a promising solution to the iron problem

present in the Village of Bolingbrook’s water

supply.

We therefore

accept the proposed stipulation and terminate the case.

We note

that the proposed use of sodium silicate would be the first such

use in Illinois

(R.436).

The above consist of the finding of fact and conclusions of

law.

ORDER

The settlement stipulation submitted to the Board on June

6,

1975

is accepted.

Respondent

is directed to carry out the terms

of the settlement

as stipulated.

The enforcement case

is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan

L.

Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, here~ycertify the above

pinion and Order were

adopted on the

/‘/

~‘

day of

______________,

1975 by a vote

of

_______

to

o

Christan L. Moff~t~~~1erk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

18

—

343