ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March 11, 1976

CITY OF OREGON, a municipal

corporation,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 75—497

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Young):

This matter comes before the Board on the Petition for

Variance filed on December 22, 1975, by the City of Oregon,

seeking relief from the chlorination requirements of Rule

305 of the Public Water Supply Rules and Regulations. An

Agency Recommendation was filed with the Board on February 9,

1976. No hearing was held in this matter.

Rule 305 requires that each public water supply, except

those purchasing water with an adequate chlorine residual,

chlorinate its water prior to its entrance into the distri-

bution system. This reiuirement became effective as of

December 21, 1975, and is directed toward protecting consumers

from the possible entrance of pathogenic organisms into the

supply system.

Accompanying the variance petition was a report prepared

by a consultant to the City entitled “Waterworks Improvement

Study” in which extensive and costly water system improvement

projects were suggested to the City. Because Oregon is in the

process of making a detailed review of this study, Oregon

requests that a variance be granted from the chlorination

requirements until December 21, 1977, to enable it to make some

alleged cost savings. At the present time Oregon has three

wells, although their consultant recommended that a fourth

well be drilled to enable Oregon to meet its anticipated needs.

The commencement date for drilling the fourth well is quite

uncertain at present. The consultant recommended that Well

#1 be abandoned or used only as a standby well after the fourth

well is in operation. Because of this anticipated change, it

is alleged that any costs expended to achieve compliance at

Well *1 would be wasted. Oregon estimates a total project cost

of $6,000.00 for a chlorination unit and housing to serve Well

~l. Since Well #1 may be abandoned or used only on a standby

20—281

---

—2—

basis, Oregon alleges two reasons this total $6,000.00 expendi-

ture would be improvident: First, money expended for building

construction would be a complete loss; second, money expended

for equipment at Well #1 would be a loss since that equipment

could not be used at Well *4 because of the different water

production rates of the two wells.

The Agency contends that this particular economic hardship

projected by Oregon is not accurate. If it were in fact necessary

to provide a building for the chlorination equipment at Well *1,

the Agency submits that a portable building could be used which

could be transferred to Well #4, when and if Well #1 is abandoned.

However, while visiting the site of Well #1, Agency field opera-

tions personnel found that a utility building exists containing

a pump which has been used in the past for the chemical feeding

of polyphosphate. With minor modifications the Agency believes

that this building could be used to house the chlorination equip-

ment and that the pump previously used to feed the polyphosphate

may now be acceptable for use in feeding liquid sodium hypochiorite.

In the eventuality that new equipment is necessary for chlorination

at Well #1, the Agency alleges that at least one manufacturer

markets a chlorinator with six different chlorination capacities.

Such a unit could be used at Well #1 until such time that Well

#4 was in operation.

In regards to the installation of chlorination facilities

at Wells #2 and 3, Oregon alleges that more favorable bids could

be obtained for such equipment if the bids were received when

taking bids for the drilling of Well #4 and the construction of

its related building. By doing this, Oregon could dictate that

all equipment be of the same manufacturer, thereby allegedly

providing for better operation because of the similar nature of

the equipment, and also reducing cost by avoiding unnecessary

duplication of repair parts.

The Agency is not convinced that Oregon would receive more

favorable bids for the installation of equipment at Wells #2 and

3 by delaying such installation until the drilling of Well #4.

Oregon has not offered any precise savings estimate which might

result from purchasing all equipment at the same time, and the

Agency believes that any such savings would be negligible and

offset by probable increases in the cost of the equipment in

the future. The Agency also submits that if similar equipment

is desired, Oregon could specify a particular brand of equipment

in setting its bids for the construction of Well *4. Whether

such equipment is needed for Wells #2 and 3 seems to be in doubt

however. While visiting these wells, Agency personnel discovered

that in addition to the pump at Well #1, two other chemical feed

pumps exist, one of which is idle while the other is presently

being used for feeding polyphosphate at Well #3. The Agency

20

282

---

—3—

believes that Oregon can use these pumps to feed sodium hypo—

chlorite at these wells.

This Board has in the past stated that the burden of proof

in variance matters is on the petitioner and that the evidence

to justify the allowance must be substantial and convincing.

Swords v. EPA, PCB 70-6, 1 PCB 5 (1970). We do not believe

that Oregon has established a hardship sufficient to justify

the grant of a two year variance; we will, however, grant a

variance for a period of 150 days to allow for the installation

of chlorination equipment at the existing facilities. Oregon

can determine whether it wishes to use the existing equipment

for feeding liquid sodium hypochiorite into the system, or

whether it wishes to purchase new equipment for use in the gas

chlorination of the system. The Board notes that the consultant

for Oregon recommended that gas chlorination be installed at

each of the existing wells and estimated the cost of compliance

using such equipment to be $24,900.00. Compliance costs using

existinq equipment would be considerably less initially, but

this initial advantage would be offset after a period of time

by the higher operating costs associated with the use of liquid

sodium hypochlorite.

The grant of this variance is conditioned on the fact that

Oregon file a project completion schedule and bi-monthly progress

reports with the Agency. In addition, a performance bond will

be required along with a standard certificate of acceptance.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER OF THE BOARI) that the City of Oregon be

granted a variance from the chlorination requirements of Rule

305 of the Public Water Supply Rules and Regulations for a period

of 150 days from the date of this Order subject to the following

conditions:

1. Oregon shall file a project completion schedule with

the Agency within 35 days of this Order and thereafter file

bi-nionthly progress reports with the Agency until completion

of the facilities.

2. Oregon shall post a performance bond with the Agency

in the amount of $24,900.00 in a form satisfactory to the Agency

to assure completion of the construction and installation of

its chlorination facilities. Such bond shall be posted within

30 days of the date of this Order at the following address:

Environmental Protection Agency

Public Water Supply Division

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois 62706

20— 283

---

—4—

3. Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Oregon

shall complete and submit to the Agency, at the above address,

the following certification:

I, (We), ________________________ having

read the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board in PCB 75-497, understand and accept said

Order, realizing that such acceptance renders

all terms and conditions thereto binding and

enforceable.

SIGNED

TITLE

DATE

Mr. Dumelle dissents.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, herejy certify the above pinion and Order were

adopted on the

//~

day of

fr)

,

1976

by a vote of

i/s.,

QA~~4~

Christan L. Moffe

,

lerk

Illinois Pollution ontrol Board