ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 24, 1980

CITY OF KNOXVILLE,

)

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 80—79, —80

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION P~NDORDER OF THE BOARD (by D. Satchell):

This matter comes before the Board upon two variance petitions

filed April 17, 1980 by the City of Knoxville (Knoxville). The pe-

titions (Ra Pet. and F Pet.) request variances from finished water

standards for gross alpha particle activity and fluoride of Rules

304(B) and (C) of Chapter 6: Public Water Supplies (Rules). The

Board on its own motion will consolidate these actions for decision.

On May 19 and May 30, 1980 the Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency) recommended that the variances be granted with conditions

(Ra Rec. and F Rec.). A first amended recommendation with regard

to alpha particle activity was filed June 6, 1980. Knoxville waiv-

ed its right to a hearing. On May 6, 1980 the Agency received a

letter from Mr. and Mrs. Jim Goff. They were advised of their

right to file a formal objection with the Board. None has been re-

ceived. The letter concludes as follows: “Please consider what

we’ve said while making your decision on the petition.” The Board

construes the letter as a comment and not an objection requesting

a hearing pursuant to Procedural Rule 404.

Knoxville has a population of 2930 and is situated in Knox

County, about three miles southeast of Galesburg. It operates a

public water supply which serves 1125 users. It has one ground

storage tank, a collecting reservoir and two elevated storage

tanks. It has three wells, described as follows:

nell No.

Depth (ft.)

Capacity

Ml/day+

Million gallons/day

1

2480

1.31

.346

2

1380*

1.64

.432

3

2480

2.45

.648

Total

5.40

1.43

*The pleadings do not identify the wells. It is inferred from the

absence of measurements of radioactivity for well 2 that it is the

least deep.

+Megaliters (106 liters) per day.

---

—2—

RADIUM (PCB 80-79)

Rule 304(C) (1) sets a maximum limit of 15 pCi/l for gross

alpha particle activity in finished water. The source of this

activity is usually radium which occurs in trace amounts in many

deep aquifers. For the remainder of this Opinion, “radium” will

be used interchangeably with “gross alpha particle activity.”

The Agency has two analyses taken from Knoxville’s distribution

system and four from wells 1 and 3. The results are summarized

as follows (Ra Rec. 2):

Gross Alpha

Date

(pCi/l)

Well 1

8.0

9—27—72

40.3

3—31—75

Well 2

Well 3

8.8

9—27—72

26.5

3—31—75

Distribution

19.7

±

6.70

3—23—79

19.3 ±6.66

7—2—79

Rule 309(C) (1) (a) provides that compliance with the radio-

logical standards is to be determined on the basis of four samples

taken at quarterly intervals. The Agency affirms that it has re-

stricted issuance of permits for water main

extensions

on the basis

of two samples “because of the appearance of a violation and the

requirements of Section 39 of the Act which place the burden of

showing that a violation will not exist on the permit applicant.”

Although Knoxville has not filed a permit appeal, the Board notes

that the provisions of the first sentence of Rule 309(C) (1) (a)

apply only to enforcement cases. For purposes of permit issuance

and variances other evidence of compliance or violation may be

sufficient.

Knoxville statesthat for plants with less than 37.8 Ml/day

(10.0 NGD) capacity zeolite softening may be the most desirable

treatment method. It estimates an installation cost of $750,000,

$667 per user or $256 per capita. Operating costs are not estimated

but are expected to be very high (Pet. 1).

The Agency on the other hand estimates the capital cost at

$194,000 with operation and maintenance at $34,000 per year. It

estimates the increased monthly cost per service connection at

---

$4.00. The Agency also suggests that cost savings would be obtained

either by finding a source of water for blending or by treating only

one or two of the wells and blending the treated water to achieve

compliance.

Bills have been introduced in Congress to alter the radio-

logical standards or extend the time for compliance. The Board

has previously noted an expert opinion that the standards could

be increased considerably and still provide adequate protection

(village of Glasford v. EPA, P03 79-238, February 7, 1980). The

Agency believes that if there is any health threat from Petitioner’s

present level of radiation, it is a long term threat. Matched

against the costs and attendant difficulties of installing treat—

ment and the possible availability of blending, the Agency believes

a variance is justified (Ra Rec. 5).

FLUORIDE (P03 80-80)

Rule 304(B) sets a maximum limit of 2.0 mg/i for fluoride

concentration in finished water for supplies in northern counties,

including Knox County. The Agency has records of sixteen analyses

ranging from 1.0 to 2.8 with an average of 2.04 mg/l fluoride.

Four samples taken in April 1979 average 2.33 mg/l (F Rec. 2).

Both Knoxville and the Agency have presented cost data for

treatment of fluoride with activated alumina. Knoxville estimates

an installation cost of $750,000. Operation will require $185,000

in additional revenue per year or $14.00 per user per month. The

Agency estimates are lower, ranging from $4.00 to $11.00 per month

depending on what percent of water must be treated to achieve

satisfactory finished water (F Rec. 6).

In its first amended recommendation the Agency suggests that

fluoride and radium can be treated together. The Board notes that

in previous cases the Agency has suggested that lime softening to

reduce radium levels may also reduce fluoride levels to within the

standard. Accordingly the cost of treatment may be overstated.

The Agency agrees that fluoride at a level present in Knox-

ville’s water supply presents no threat to health. The Agency

has urged the United States Environmental Protection Agency to

raise the standard to four times the optimal level or to approx—

imately 4.0 mg/l (F Rec. 2). The United States Environmental

Protection Agency has stated that at levels up to 8 mg/i fluoride

(and possibly higher) there have been no known harmful effects

other than dental mottling at levels in excess of 4 mg/i (F Rec.

3)

---

—4—

Having considered the factors above the Board finds that

Knoxville would suffer arbitrary or unreasonable hardship if re-

quired to suspend water main extensions or to treat immediately

for radium and fluoride. Because of its obligations under the

delegation of primacy of enforcement under the Safe Drinking

Water Act, the Agsncy has recommended that the variances be granted

only through January 1, 1981, the deadline for exemptions from the

federal regulations (Turnberry Utilities, Inc. v. EPA, PCB 79-257,

March 20, 1980; Village of Wataga v. EPA, PCB 80-30, May 1, 1980).

Because the petitions are deficient in their discussion of

alternatives to treatment and combined treatment for radium and

fluoride, the Board will grant a variance only through January 1,

1981 without considering whether Knoxville is entitled to a vari-

ance for either or both parameters for a longer period under fed—

eral law (40 CFR Part 142, Subparts E and F). Knoxville will be

required to provide the Agency with a compliance program within

150 days of this Order. The Agency has indicated that, in the

event the federal standards or deadlines are not changed, it pro-

poses to enter into a compliance agreement with Knoxville under

its enforcement powers (First Amendment to Recommendation). The

United States Environmental Protection Agency has indicated that

through this mechanism compliance programs may be extended beyond

the deadline for exemptions (F Rec. 7).

In addition to the other conditions noted above, Knoxville

will be required to periodically notify its customers of the

existence of this variance.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

Petitioner the City of Knoxville is granted a variance from

the 2.0 mg/i fluoride maximum standard and the 15 pCi/l gross

alpha particle activity limitation of Rules 304(B) and 304(C) (1)

of Chapter 6: Public Water Supplies, subject to the following

conditions:

1. This variance will expire January 1, 1981.

2. Petitioner shall investigate the possibility of devel-

oping additional water sources which could be used in

blending with its current well sources to reduce the

radiation or fluoride level present and report to the

Agency the information it has developed and the conclu-

sions it has reached based on that information. As

---

—5—

part of its program, Petitioner should submit represent-

ative samples of water from its existing wells to the

Agency for alpha radiation analysis.

3. Petitioner should explore the availability of landfill

sites that can and will accept radiation bearing soft-

ening wastes should blending not prove to be a feasible

alternative.

4. Within 150 days of the date of this Order Petitioner

shall present to the Agency for its approval, a coordi-

nated program (with increments of progress) to bring the

supply into compliance with the fluoride and radiological

standards in accord with applicable state and federal law.

5. Petitioner shall provide notice of this variance to its

customers in writing at least once every three months.

This notice shall indicate the most recently measured

levels of radioactivity.

6. Within forty-five days of the date of this Order, Peti-

tioner shall execute and forward to the Illinois Environ-

mental Protection Agency, Division of Public Water Sup-

plies, 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706

a Certificate of Acceptance and Agreement to be bound to

all terms and conditions of this variance. This forty-

five day period shall be held in abeyance for any period

this matter is being appealed. The form of the Certifi-

cate shall be as follows:

CE RTI Fl CATI ON

I, (We),

____________________________,

having read

and fully understanding the Order in PCB 80-79, -80, hereby

accept that Order and agree to be bound by all of its terms

and conditions.

SIGNED __________________________

TITLE __________________________

DATE

IT IS SO ORDERED.

---

Christan L. Moffet~

Illinois Pollution Co’~rT’tro1 Board

—6--

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

Board, herebj certify that the above Opinion and Order wer~adopted

on the

______

day of

~3~44.L

,

1980 by a vote of ~