ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
November 15,
1979
TRIVOLI PUBLIC WATER DISTRICT,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 79—198
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr. Satchell):
This matter comes before the Pollution Control Board upon
a variance petition filed on September 17,
1979 by the Trivoli
Public Water District in Trivoli, Peoria County.
Petitioner
requests
a variance from the 2.0 mg/i limitation for fluoride
in Rule 304(B) (4)
of Chapter 6:
Public Water. Supplies for a
period of five years.
The Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
filed a recommendation on October 19,
1979.
No hear-
ing
was
held
and
no
comment
has
been
received.
The
Trivoli
Public
Water
District (District)
was formed in
1970 to replace
the
unreliable
private
wells
serving each home
in an unincorporated community.
With the aid of local volunteer
help and a forty year loan of $130,000
from the Farmers Home
Administration
(FHA)
the well and distribution system was con-
structed.
Petitioner presently serves
105 homes and businesses
with the total income used to cover loan payments, operating
expenses and depreciation.
Because of high loan costs,
the
water rate charges are substantially higher than those of ad-
jacent communities.
Petitioner’s loan costs will continue until
2010; no reduction in expenses
is expected until then.
Petitioner’s average fluoride concentration as of May 24,
1979 was 3.85 mg/i.
This exceeds the standard of 2.0 mg/i.
The
estimated cost of equipment for fluoride removal
is $124,000.
The operation and maintenance cost is estimated at $2900.
Pet-
itioner still owes FHA approximately $123,000.
Petitioner asserts
that with these high costs, the charges to the water customer
would exceed the benefits and most homes would likely return to
private wells.
With this loss of revenue,
the District could not
operate the system and this result, Petitioner asserts,
is not in
the best interest of the public or the environment.
The Agency
agrees with this analysis and notes that similar effects have
been observed previously.
1 /~
1
—2—
The Agency agrees with Petitioner’s allegations and further
notes that fluoride removal equipment is difficult to operate
and control.
The Board has recognized the problems presented
by fluoride removal treatment in PCB 77—349, PCB 78—53 and PCB
78—218.
The Agency agrees that the level of fluoride present in the
Petitioner’s water supply presents no public health danger.
Re-
garding fluoride the (JSEPA guidance document states that aside
from dental mottling “at levels up to
8 mg/l
(and possibly higher)
there have been no other known harmful effects on adults drinking
such water.”
The document further states,
“While additional
studies are being conducted by EPA and the National Institute for
Dental Research, exemptions should be readily available up to
about four times the optimal, providing it can be shown that
water related excess moderate—to—severe fluorosis is not evident.”
The Agency believes that Petitioner’s fluoride concentration,
although above the current standard,
is sufficiently low as to not
require
an epidemiological
study as to the presence of fluorosis
in the community.
The Agency believes that at the level of fluor-
ide
in Petitioner’s water there should be no noticeable fluorosis
in the community or,
if it is present, it should be at barely
noticeable levels.
The Agency, along with the Department of Public Health and
other states which are similarly affected,
has urged USEPA to
raise the applicable level of fluoride to four times the optimal
level to approximately 4.0 mg/l.
The Agency
is not certain
whether USEPA will raise the allowable level of fluoride; however,
it does believe that Congress will extend the deadline for exemp-
tions under the Safe Drinking Water Act from the current date of
January
1,
1981.
The Agency has received primacy of enforcement
of the Safe Drinking Water Act from USEPA as of September 30, 1979,
under the provisions
of which the state must maintain
a program at
least as stringent as that of the federal government.
The Agency does recommend granting this variance with certain
conditions.
There is a lack of any demonstrated adverse health
effects from the level of fluoride present in Petitioner’s water.
The cost is high and the treatment available
is apparently unre-
liable.
There is a liklihood that the standards will be changed
or the time for compliance extended.
The Board agrees with the Agency.
Requiring Petitioner to
comply with the standard at this time would constitute
an arbitrary
and unreasonable hardship upon Petitioner.
The Board will grant
the requested variance until January
1,
1981 subject to the Agency’s
conditions.
36—142
—3—
This
Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions
of law in this matter.
ORDER
It
is
the
Order
of
the
Pollution
Control
Board
that
the
Trivoli
Water
District
is
granted
a
variance
from
the
2.0
mg/i
standard
for
fluoride
in
Rule
304(B)
(4)
of Chapter 6:
Public
Water Supplies until January
1,
1981,
subject to the following
conditions:
1.
Subject to changes which may occur in the federal require-
ments, Petitioner will present to the Agency for its
approval, within 150 days of the Order herein,
a program
to bring the supply into compliance with the fluoride
standards by January
1,
1981.
2.
Within forty—five days of the date of this Order, Petitioner
shall execute and forward to the Illinois Environmental Pro-
tection Agency,
Variance Section, 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
certificate
shall
be
as
follows:
CERTIFICATION
I,
(We),
_______________________________, having
read and fully understanding the Order in PCB 79-198, hereby
accept that Order and agree to be bound by all of its terms
and conditions.
SIGNED
TITLE
DATE
Mr. Goodman abstained.
36—143
—4—
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control
Board,
hereby
certify
the
above
Opinion
and
Order
were
adoated
on
the
/~~‘
day
of
~
,
1979
by
a
vote
36—144