ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

October

12,

1984

p

Petitioner,

PCB

84~7O

~1IRONMENTAL

~ENCY,

Y’ ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by B~Forcade):

~tter

comes before the Board on a Petition for

Variance,

~

6,

1984, and an Amended Petition, filed July 19,

~.eCity of Knoxville (~Knoxvil1e~)~Knoxville requests

:oin the Board~sfinished drinking

water

standards

for

1d

gross

alpha particle activity.

The Environmental

i

Agency

(‘~Agency~)filed a Recommendation on August

2,

~gency recommends

granting the variance subject to

iditions.

Knoxville waived hearing

in this matter,.

No

icnts or

objections were received.

tie has previously received variances from the 2.0

de limitation of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 601.301

old

Rule

the 15 pCi/i

gross alpha particle limitation of 35

de 604,203(a)

old

Rule 304(C)

in case numbers PCB

,

and PCB 8i~4. Knoxvil1e~slast variance expired on

1984.

The Petitioner has generally complied with the

f the

previous variances by continuing

a sampling

d~t~rminethe level of radiological activity in their

1

~Jnished water, submitting reports and communicating

Agency regarding alternative water sources and current

~hnoiogy

for fluoride and radiological contaminants,

Thg water users of the variances and the current

~!

and fluoride content of the finished water

(Pet.

p.

Petition and Amended Petition contain no certain date

~tion of the variance and no compliance plan0

Petitioner

ke relief from the finished water requirements until

Frvironmental Protection Agency reexamines these 1imita~

let,

p.

2).

tj

of Knoxville owns

and

operates a public water

cervices

1,215 households and 3,280

people.

The

cts

of

three drilled rock wells,

a 44,000 gallon

r~servoir,

chlorination equipment and two elevated

Average daily pumpage

is 345,000 gallons

(Rec,

p.

60~247

---

~i~’ngand lab analysis results iDdicate that

teveic

for

gross

alpha

aotlvity

range

from

18.2 ±

~b±

7~57 pCi/i

(Rec,

Attachment

A).

Fluoride

cween

June

of

1981

and

Hovernber

of

1983

averaged

~xhib~t

7)

These

elevated

levels

are naturally

~piiarice

strategies

nclude

installation

of

lime

i~,

drilling

new

wells

or

purchasing

water

from

t

blending

with

the

current

supply.

At

the

evet,

there

is

no

removal

equipment

specifically

~.

‘ublic

water

si~’p1ies

s~’h as

Knoxville

(Pet.

~titioner

asse

te

and

tl~e Agency

agrees,

~

~f’~ct4v~

me~ris ~f

teJucvig

the

radiological

a t of the City’s water would be to purchase

i~y

of

Galesburg

for

blendinj

The

1981

cost

~n the

petition

indicate

that

such

a program

at

month

per

user

(Pet,

Exhibit

6).

The

City

at

aside

10

of

their

capacity

for

sale

to

roup

Exhibit

4).

1-ims

that

applying

the

Board’s

limitations

for

~s

alpha

particle

activity

at

this

time

would

~zy

and

unreasonable

hardship~

Petitioner argues

~ia~

burden

on

the

city

and

its

water

users

would

o

light

of

the

minimal

to

non~existent

adverse

act

from the current

fluoride

and

radiological

~e

supply.

Knoxville

argues

that U~S,E~P,Awill

1y

change

the

applicable

federal

standards

in

and

that

any

efforts

to

comply

with

existing

asteful,

To

the

best

of

the

Agency’s

iiuoride

standard

revision

would be completed in

ties

alpha

particle activity standard revision

~ted

in

1987 at the earliest

(Rae.

p.

3).

y

a~jrees that

there

is

hardship,

albeit not sub~~~’

\gency

believes that the minimal adverse environmental

~

with

this level

of

hardship

warrants

granting a

‘ime,

The

Agency

is,

however,

concerned

with

‘ure

of

the

water

users

to

gross

alpha

particle

ontinue

to grant Petitioner a series of variances

~or

ultimate

compliance

will result in potentially

~ra

exposure

(Rec,

p.

5).

The Recommendation

virianee

be granted

for

approximately two years

~on

that

Knoxville

comply

with

the standards at

period

by

obtaining water

for

blending from the

r

(Rec,

p.

9).

The

Agency

believes that these

cessary

to

comply

with

the

requirements

of

ning

variances

from

the

Safe

Drinking Water

,S,C,

Section

(f)~’(j)

(Rec.

p.

6~8).

a~,

to

the

extent

consistent

with

the

SDWA,

grant

p

ance

with

the

Board’s

standard

would

impose

reasonable

hardship.

The

Board

finds

that

---

there

~ r~rdshipin the pres~r ras~ Kroxsdle’s

present water

supply ~

~turally contatt~~rated

~.i

t’~

luoride and radiological

contan~n~r

~

The

cost

of coa~iiance through new treatment

equipir

~.

illing new wel

a

~irg

~ter for blending

does ir’~ ~ an unreasonable la’~d~hip

in hg t of the minimal

advert

ronmental impacf.

lo~~c~erKrox~11emust make

reasor~b

~~ogress towarda

~ori:ar

a

Variances cannot be

contir

y granted as an a

err~f a

c~c ir~’zance, Petitioner

does I~

roans available to

1ti~rely com~1y, As time goes by

and

CXI

~e

to

the

contanirar

-

~eases, lie risk of adverse

healtt ~ ~r~ts increases,

Ther

or

a~’a ccndition of the

v~rj~

~c’~itionermust cc~

y wrt

i

a t~a”enabletime,

U

~ter’sargument th

t ~

ay be

~egulatory revision

that

r

~‘

~nge the applical Ic

‘i

~t one in the future is far

too sp ~a ~ttive,

Such

potenti~dreauiatory change cannot serve

as a b-

for an “open ended

vanidnca, a~the Petitioner desires

in thi

.~

The Board has

‘at~du~~~zersUtilities~man

of IlUrc~rv. IEPA, PCB 83~-l2’~(April

19

1984) that “every

water pr

ceding

before

the B ad

oi Id be halted by arguing

that

water qu~ by

standards cou~d

be revised in

ic

future”

and

“the

Board c~rot grant variances ba~edi~por ~ petitioner’s hope that

a par~icrIarset of standard

11’ b

hanged in the future,”

¶10

co~rbinue

to

grant a ear es

f variances or an “open

ended~

‘~

~rrance with no plar

~

c

phiance would violate the

intent

c

~Ae

Act and

the case Ia

n this area,

The Supreme

Court ~

~d, in ~

Con any

Pollution Control Board,

67

111.

2

2

6

367

N.E.

2d 684

6~8 19771

that “the concept of a

varian~t~4i~chpermanently tibezatec a polluter from the dictates

of a b

I regulation is wol y ~nco~sistertwith the purposes of

the E~

mental Protectior

t

“

~t r’ therefore appropriate

to gra

‘

variance for a pen

d of time sufficient to comply

with RDard regulations.

The variance will be granted with the

condit

ii

that Knoxville pro~eed~ith the most cost effective

method ~f compliance, in order to mini~uizethe hardship on the

City and the

water

users,

Knoxville has stated

in its petition

that u r~hasing

water

from Galesburg is the most cost effective

alterna~r’c. Knoxville will have until July 1,

1986, to complete

all nece-sary measures to blend purchased water from Galesburg,

~3e~a~se

Illinois

has been delegated primacy for enforcement

of the

D4A,

any state

variances granted must be at least as

stringent as

federal

variances

In granting a variance, this

Board mu~cfind that;

(~

Because of character~eticsof the raw water sources

which are reasonably avai~ableto the system, the

cystem cannot meet the requirements respecting the

maximum contaminant levels of the drinking water

regulations

despite auplication of the best technology,

treatment techniques, or other means, which the

;dministrator finds are

j~

~era1Iy available (taking

~osts

into

consideration)’ and

---

~,

The

granting

ol

~.

i~t rasult

in

an

unreasonable

tL3~

i

~ea t~~

~crsons

served by

the

system.

(~c

:

~~ateDrinking

Water

Act,

42 U.S.C. ~

o

if

act, under

er’

what

is

the be

ens

for Knoxvihl

~ds,

based on cc

~ut

of a pipel~na

Lurrent water

an

to

Knoxville,

a water

from

Gai

I

easonably

avail

i.

c

term,

second

criterioa

Is

~ional

period

of cxi

~nee

will

not

xesu~

f

persons

served

y

on

eventual

cong

a

federal

varian c

requires that

ta

~e, including

iw

~tation

of

control ~

will

comply

with

cc

will prescribe a

~burg

by July

1,

13

/

Opinion

coneth

~on

of law

in thi

Board must

iz~

technique,

or

jot

consideration,

The

v

a

y Inoxilila, that

a

1e~diogof that

water

die

~c3n~Ygenerally

oc~

I ada that the

~

ti~c

a

raw

water

source

ystc~ t

the end of the

ai

laf

CO

ii

this situation,.

‘na

wi

result from

granting

ii

a~ nreaaorctble risk to the

a

~n

By coiditioning the

,

I

be

n

cxposure

is

avoided,.

~

ad,

a

01

14l5(a)(l)(A)

of

r

~ ~chedule

for

(i)

L

~j

~

—,

~

(~

,

~hc coiitions of

this

x

uirUe~.

a.

The schedule

of

~

or date

a d final

connnection

a

id s

idings of fact

and

City of Knoxvilth

i

xeb~arar

Oct ~ variance

for its

,ater

supply

from the flu ride

lii itation of 35

Ill. Adm0

.301

and

the

gnos

thl

i

artfcl~activity

limitation

of

Adm.

Code

604,20

a

ub~a

to the following

one:

This variance

ill

~

a July 1, 1987,

Pursuant to

35

send to each

notice to

the

variance

by

tI

alpha particle

first set

of

1i~tt

variance

and

~

shall state

th

air

activity

and fluo

‘ii

notice period

du

r’

1~

Code

~.20l, Petitioner

shall

p b~

ithr supply a

written

‘it~oer has been

granted a

tort o

P and from

the gross

o

rue atandards in

the

a.

a~i~’Ithan

the grant

of this

~

worth

thereafter.

The

notice

ga ~on’~crt-f gross alpha

particle

aa~tplestaken

since the last

‘cI sawpl

a were taken,

dcia.

C, ~

Boei ~:

Cv

~

j

pu~.

var.

r

the

I

var

-

the

ir

a~.

eowp~.

ta

~

---

5

3.

Petitioner

shall

achieve compliance

with the

gross

alpha particle

activity and

fluoride

satandards

by

obtaining water

from

the

City

of

Gaesburg

in

accordance

with

the

~ol1owing

Item

Completion

Date

Submit

permit

apphicatiDn for

April

1,

1986

construction and

operatinq

permits

for

pipeline

connection

Begin construction

July

31,

1986

Complete construction

and

July

1,

CERTIFICATION

I,

(We)

_______________

_________________________________

hereby accept and agree to

be bound

by all terms and conditions

of the Order of the Pollution

Control

Board in PCB 84—70,

October

Authorized Agent

Title

Date

IT IS SO

ORDERED.

Board

Members

J.

D. Dumelie

and

J. Anderson concurred,

I,

Dorothy

M.

Gunn,

Clerk

of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that

the

above Opinion and Order was adopted

on the

/~~‘

day of

___

___________,

b~M~un~l~

~

I1l:inois Pollution Control