ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October 2, 1980
CITY OF MINONK,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 80—136
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Anderson):
On July 23, 1980 the City of Minonk filed a petition for
variance from the 2.0
mgll
fluoride maximum level contained in
Rule 304(B) and from radiological quality standards contained in
Rule 304(C) of Chapter 6: Public Water Supplies. On August 25,
1980 the Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed its
Recommendation that a variance, subject to conditions, be granted
through January 1, 1981, the current deadline for exemptions from
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Hearing in this matter was
waived, and none was held.
The City of Minonk (City), located in Woodford County, supplies
910 water users from two deep wells drilled into St. Peter sandstone.
Well No. 1, which is 1850 feet deep, was drilled in 1893; Well No.
2, which is 2005 feet deep, was drilled in 1922. While the petition
is somewhat unclear, it would seem that the City seeks this variance
in order to be permitted to extend its distribution system, as
well as to continue using its present water supply (Pet. 2, 6).
Distribution samples show concentrations of fluoride and radiation
in violations of the Board’s rules. We will first deal with the
radiological quality issue.
Two samples taken from the City’s distribution system in July
and December of 1979 showed gross alpha particle activity of 38.1
±15.8 and 17.1 ±8.63 pico curies per liter (pCi/i), and gross
beta particle activity of 29.5 ±15.7 and 26.8 ±14.3 pCi/i. Tests
for radium 226 and 228, and uranium were not performed (Pet. 1,
Rec. 2).
Rule 304(C) establishes a 15 pCi/l maximum for gross alpha
particle activity. The Board has previously held that variance
relief may be granted, even if less than four quarterly samples
(required by Rule 309(C)(1)(a) as proof of an enforceable violation)
indicate non—compliance with Rule 304 e.g. City of Rolling Meadows
v. EPA, PCB 80—70, July 14, 1980. However, in its Recommendation
in this case, the Agency has informed the Board that USEPA sources
have advised it that:
2
“the testing methodology used to determine gross
alpha particle activity has a previously undiscovered
accuracy problem
...
which can lead to a theoretical
over estimation of up to 4 times the proper result.
This variability impairs the usefulness of the gross
alpha particle test as a screening method for the
presence of radium.” Rec. 2—3.
The Agency has further determined that it has no “reliable data
base for the radiological constituents,” and consequently will
not withhold permits pursuant to Section 39 of the Act until it
is sure that its “analytical procedures will give correct results”
(Pet. Ex. A),
The Board declines to award variances if it is unlikely that
the Petitioner is in violation of its rules, Roiling Meadows, supra,
at 2, As the accuracy of the Agency’s data base has been questioned
by the Agency itself, the likelihood that the City is in violation
of Rule 304(C) is questionable. Therefore, the Board denies
variance from Rule 304(C), as being unnecessary at this time and
unwarranted by the facts here presented. Testing must be con-
tinued however in order that the radiological content of the
City’s water be accurately determined.
Rule 304(B) establishes a maximum fluoride concentration
level of 2,0 mg/i. Analyses of four samples taken from each well
(in 1961, 1975, and 2 in 1977) and from the distribution system
(4 in 1979) establish that both the water drawn from each well
and the water drawn from the distribution system violates this
standard. The average of the four distribution system samples is
3.2 mg/i (Pet, 1, Rec, 2),
The City asserts that it cannot meet the 2.0 mg/i fluoride
standard by reconstructing its present wells or by developing new
water sources, based on reports given it by the Illinois State
Geological and Water Surveys as to ground water availability.
Consequently, to remove fluoride, the City would be forced to
employ the adsorption on bone—char or activated alumina media
treatment technique recommended in the USEPA “Manual of Treatment
Techniques.”
The City states that fluoride removal will place an unreasonable
economic burden on it, and on the system users, The City estimates
the construction cost of a fluoride removal unit to be $105,000.
Financing and operating costs are estimated to be an additional
$21,000. (This is based on the necessity of financing the project
through issuance of revenue bonds, since its general obligation
bonding capacity has been diminished by financing of its sewage
treatment plant and sewer project.) In addition, a fluoride removal
requirement would require an additional water use charge of $2.30
per month. Water use charges are currently $6 month on an average
(sewer use charges equal to water use charges have also recently
been imposed)(Pet. 5),
3
The Agency does not challenge the City’s cost estimates. It
instead makes a persuasive argument as to the economic reason-
ableness of not requiring immediate construction of a fluoride
removal facility. Bearing in mind the possibility that radium
removal might be required, should accurate future tests prove it
necessary, the Agency states “there would be a substantial cost
savings to the petitioner from designing and constructing a
unified treatment facility (if alternate water sources do not
develop) that would achieve compliance with both the fluoride and
gross alpha radiation standards simultaneously, rather than to
design and construct one for fluoride and then, if necessary,
another for radium” (Rec. 3).
Both the City and the Agency agree that the fluoride content
of the City’s water presents no threat to health, and remind the
Board that the Agency has urged USEPA to raise the maximum fluoride
level to 4.0 mg/i (Pet, 5—6, Rec. 4—5).
While the Agency therefore supports grant of the variance,
it again recommends that the Board grant variance only through the
date for exemptions from the SDWA. This date is currently January 1,
1981, although the Agency’s most recent information indicates that
Congress is likely to extend this time limit during this legislative
session.
Both the points made in the Agency’s Recommendation, and the
circumstances detailed in the City’s petition, are similar to
those in ~
of Aitonav.EPA, PCB 80—74, July 10, 1980,
Village of Wataga v. EPA, PCB 80—30, May 1, 1980, and Turnberry
Utilities, Inc. v. EPA, PCB 79—257, March 20, 1980. For all of
the reasons there expressed, the Board finds variance relief
under S1415 of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C. §300(g)—4 available, and
appropriate.
The Board finds that denial of variance would be arbitrary
and unreasonable, in light of the City’s demonstrated financial
pressures, the lack of a health threat to its citizens, and the
economic advantage of not constructing a unified treatment plant
until after the City’s water treatment needs can be accurately
and definitely determined. Accordingly, a five—year variance is
granted, subject to the conditions outlined in the attached order.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s finding of fact and
conclusion of law in this matter.
ORDER
1. Petitioner, the City of Minonk, is granted a variance from
the 2.0 mg/i maximum fluoride concentration standard of Rule 304(B)
of Chapter 6: Public Water Supplies, subject to the following
conditions:
4
A. This variance will expire 5 years from the
date of this order, or at such earlier tine as fluoride
standards
are
revised.
B. Subject to prior revision of fluoride standards,
by January 1, 1981, the Petitioner shall
submit
to the
Agency a report on the availability of,
and
economic
feasibility of utilizing, alternative water sources which
could be blended with its current well sources to reduce
the fluoride content of the finished water.
C. Subject to prior revisions of fluoride standards,
beginning on or about January 1, 1981,
and
at six month
intervals thereafter, the Petitioner shall communicate
with the
Agency
in order to ascertain whether fluoride
removal techniques specifically applicable to small
systems have been developed and identified. As expedi-
tiously after such identification as is practicable,
Petitioner shall submit to the Agency a program (with
increments of progress) for bringing its
system
into
compliance with fluoride standards.
D. Petitioner shall take all reasonable measures
with its existing equipment
to
minimize the level of
fluoride in its water supply and shall not allow the
fluoride concentration to exceed 4.0 mg/l.
E. On or before December 30, 1980 and every three
months thereafter Petitioner will send to each user of
its public water supply a written notice to the effect
that Petitioner has been granted by the Pollution
Control
Board a variance from the 2.0 mg/l
maximum
fluoride
standard. The notice shall
state
the average content of
fluoride in samples taken since the last noticq period
during
which samples were taken. The notice shall state
that
consumption of water containing excessive amounts
of fluoride can result in fluorosis and that dental mot-
tling can occur at levels in excess of 4.0 mg/l.
F. Petitioner and the Environmental Protection
Agency shall devise a mutually agreeable schedule for
sampling
of Petitioner’s public water supply.
2. Variance from
Rule 304(C) of thapter 6 is denied as
unnecessary at this
time.
The City shall, however, continue to
submit representative samples
of its water
to
the Agency for
accurate radiological analysis.
3. Within forty-five days of the date of this Order,
Petitioner shall execute
and forward to
the
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, Variance Section, 2200 Churchill Road, Spring-
field, Illinois 62706, a Certificate of Acceptance and Agreement
to be
bound
to all tens and conditions of this variance. This
5
forty—five day period shall be held in abeyance for any period
this matter is being appealed. The form of the certificate shall
be as follows:
CERTIF ICAT ION
I, (We),
,
having read
the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in PCB 80—136,
dated ___________________________, understand and accept the said
Order, realizing that such acceptance renders all terms and
conditions thereto binding and enforceable.
By:
Petitioner
Title
Date
IT IS SO ORDERED
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, her~by certify ~
Opinion and Order were adopted
on the
________
~
day of
________________________________,
1980 by a vote of
________
CD
Christan L. Moffet~k
Illinois Pollution Control Board
