ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April
16,
1981
CENTRAL ILLINOIS UTILITY CO.,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 80—234
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(By J.
Anderson):
This matter comes before the Board on the petition filed
December
31,
1980
as amended January
29, 1981 for extension of
the variance from the 2.0 mg/i fluoride limitation
of Rule 304
of Chapter
6:
Public Water Supply which was granted in
Central
Illinois Utilit~rCo.
v.
IEPA,
PCB 77—349,
30 PCB
32
(April 13,
1978).
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
filed its Recommendation
in support of grant of the extension
January
16,
1981.
Hearing was waived and none has been held.
Pursuant to a certificate of public convenience and necessity,
granted by the Illinois Commerce Commission
(ICC), the Central
Illinois Utility Co.
(the Company) provides water service to
the
Oak Run Development, a subdivision located near Dahinda
in Knox
County, Illinois.
The water needs of its 170 users are currently
being supplied from a single deep well,
although the Company
anticipates construction of a second well in the near future.
The raw and the finished water from the existing well contains
approximately 2.5 mg/i fluoride and the water of the proposed
second well would likely contain excess fluoride.
(Knox County
has been identified by the Illinois State Water Survey as the
county containing the most water supply systems exceeding the
2.0 mg/i fluoride limitation, as the raw water contains fluoride
in levels ranging from 2.2 mg/i to 8.0 mg/i.
The Company’s consulting engineers have recommended that of
the various central fluoride removal processes available,
that the
activated alumina adsorption process would he the least costly.
Installation of the necessary equipment to treat the water fron
the existing well would involve a capital expenditure of
$127,860.
Yearly operation
and
maintenance costs of $28,000,
in combination
with other treatment related expenses, will impose additional
yearly revenue requirements
of $61,248.
If the waters of the
proposed second well need treatment,
additional capital and
operating costs would necessarily be imposed
(Pet.
4,
Ex.
13,
C).
41—269
2
The Company provides a balance sheet and income statement to
support its assertion that it has insufficient cash or income
to
finance installation of the system, and provides the Board with no
figures or plan whereby the initial capital expenditure could be
financed.
The Company does state that if system installation were
to be required and somehow financed,
and the ICC were to refuse to
allow the additional annual revenue requirements to be passed on
to the Company’s customers, that the Company would suffer a net
annual
loss of $43,685.
If,
however,
ICC approval were received
for rate increases to pass on the annual revenue requirement, each
of the 170 customers would be assessed an additional
$360 yearly
(Pet.
4—5, Ex. D—F).
The Board noted in its prior opinion that in
1978,
customers were yearly paying
$60 for water service
(30
PCT3
at 32).
In summary, the Company believes that inm~ediatecompliance
would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship on itself and
its users.
The Agency agrees with the facts
as presented by the Company,
including the Company’s assertion that the health of its customers
will not be endangered by consumption of water containing fluoride
at the 2.5 mg/l concentration level.
The Agency accordingly
recommends
grant of variance until January
1,
1984,
the recently
extended deadline date for exemptions under Section 1416 of the
Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA),
42 USC 300(g)—5.
The Board finds that the Company has demonstrated that
denial
of variance would impose an arbitrary and unreasonable
hardship.
The situation of the very small system distributing
water with excessive fluoride has changed little since
the Board
comprehensively addressed the problem in Village of Altona,
PCB
80—74
(July
10,
1980),
despite the extension of the SDWA exemption
deadline:
treatment technologies and the fluoride standard itself
continue to remain in a state of
flux.
Variance
is therefore
granted for a five—year period,
subject to the conditions outlined
in the attached Order.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s
findings
of fact an~
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
1.
Petitioner,
the Central Illinois Utility Co.,
is granted
a variance from the 2.0 mg/l maximum fluoride concentration limit
of Rule 304(B)
of Chapter
6:
Public Water Supply for five years,
subject to the following conditions:
A.
Beginning on or about June
1,
1981,
and at six month
intervals thereafter, the Petitioner shall communicate with
the
A~encyto ascertain whether fluoride removal techniques speci-
fically applicable to small systems have been developed and
identified.
B.
As expeditiously after identification of
a feasible
compliance method as
is practicable, but no later than January
1,
41—270
3
1984,
Petitioner shall submit to the Agency a program
(with
increments of progress)
for bringing its system into compliance
with fluoride standards.
C.
Petitioner shall take all reasonable measures with it$
existing equipment
to minimize the level of fluoride
in its
finished water and shall not allow the fluoride concentration to
exceed an average of 4.0 mg/i.
D.
Pursuant to Rule 313(D)(1)
of Chapter
6, on or before
June 30, 1981 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 a variance from the
2.0 mg/i maximum fluoride standard by the Pollution Control Board.
The notice shall
state the average content of fluoride
in samples
taken since the last notice period during which samples were taken.
2.
Within forty—five days of the date of this Order,
Petitioner shall execute and forward to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency,
PWS Enforcement Programs,
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:
CERTIFICATE
I,
(We),
,
having read
the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in PCB 80—234,
dated ___________________________, understand and accept
the
said
Order, realizing that such acceptance renders all terms and
conditions thereto binding and enforceable.
Petitioner
By:
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
IT IS
SO ORDERED.
I,
Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order
were adopted on the
~
day of
~
~‘
,
1981
by a vote of
~
.
Vt
/
,,,
~
~-
Christan L.
Moffett,, C~erk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
41—271