ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November 20,
1980
VILLAGE OF BRIMFIELD,
)
Petitioner,
v,
)
PCB 80—183
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.
Anderson):
This matter comes before the Board on the petition for
variance filed by the Village of Brimfield
(Village) on October
3,
1980 as amended November
3,
1980.
The Village seeks variance from
the 2.0 mg/i fluoride maximum limitation contained in Rule 304(B)
of Chapter
6:
Public Water Supplies
(Chapter 6).
On October
30,
1980,
the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) recommended that
variance be granted,
subject to conditions.
Hearing was waived,
and none has been held.
No objections to the petition have been
received by the Agency or the Board,
which is giving this matter
expedited consideration pursuant to the Village’s request of
November
6,
1980.
The Village of Brimfield, which
is located in Peoria County,
daily supplies an average of 63,000 gallons
of water,
according
to Agency estimates,
from one 1300 foot deep well to its approxi-
mately 850 residents.
Variance
is sought in order
to extend the
Village’s water distribution service to
10 lots within the Village,
where
four homes have already been built and sold.
The Village’s
request for the necessary permit was denied,
as the Village’s water
contains a fluoride concentration of 3,3 mg/i
(Pet.
1,
Rec.
2,
3).
The Village states, without elaboration, that an engineering
study performed in 1974 indicates that there are no alternate
shallow well or surface supplies of water sufficient to replace
or adequately supplement its deep well source.
Investigation of
costs of three fluoride removal techniques has led the Village to
conclude that they are financially infeasible.
The capital costs
for activated alumina filtration were estimated to be $200,000,
additional yearly financing,
operation, and maintenance expenditures
to be $40,000, and monthly cost increases to its 350 users to be
$9.61.
Lime softening treatment figures given were $375,000 in
capital costs and $68,000 in yearly expenditures,
at a monthly
user increase of $16.23.
Costs for reverse osmosis were estimated
as $300,000 capital
costs and $60,000 in yearly expenditures,
at
a monthly user increase of
$14.42
(Pet,
2—3).
2
The Village believes that continued consumption of water
containing
3.3 mg/l fluoride will have no adverse health effects
on its residents,
who have consumed this water since 1953.
The
Board takes note of correspondence from both the Village and Oakley
Builders, Inc., developer of the 10
lots needing water
service.
The letter from the Village acknowledges that permit denial should
have been anticipated by both the builder and developer, but also
states that four buyers of the lots will suffer financial and per-
sonal hardship if occupancy of their new homes is postponed by delay
in commencement of water service
(Pet.
3,
Letters of October 17 and
November
6,
1980).
The Agency believes that the Village has overestimated capital
costs
for the three treatment methods by, respectively,
$110,000
(alumina),
$55,000
(lime), and $60,000
(reverse osmosis),
and has
overestimated yearly operation and maintenance costs
for
lime
softening by $6,000 but underestimated yearly costs for alumina
filtration and reverse osmosis by $3,000 and $30,000.
The Village’s
conclusion as to the unavailability of alternative water sources
is not challenged,
although the Agency desires more information in
this regard
(Rec.
3,
4,
Ex.
B—H).
The Agency nonetheless recommends grant of variance,
as no
health danger has been demonstrated and treatment costs would im-
pose an unreasonable economic hardship to this small public water
supply.
The Agency reminds the Board that it has urged USEPA to
raise the maximum fluoride level to 4.0 mg/1.
The Agency acknow-
ledges that this petition falls
in line with recent cases
in which
the Board has granted
5 year variances to small municipalities, but
believes variance can be recommended only through January
1,
1981,
the current deadline for exemptions under Section 1416 of the Safe
Drinking Water Act,
42 U.S.C.
300(g)—S.
The Board finds that the Village has demonstrated that
immediate compliance would impose an arbitrary and unreasonable
hardship both on its current water users and the lot owners who
seek service.
For the reasons stated in previous opinions,
the
Board grants variance for a
five
year period,
subject to the
conditions outlined in the attached Order.
(See City of Minonk,
PCB 80—136, October
2,
1980,
and cases cited therein at p.
3.)
This Opinion constitutes the Board~sfindings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
1.
Petitioner, the Village of Brimfield,
is granted a variance
from the 2.0 mg/l maximum fluoride concentration standard of Rule
304(B) of Chapter
6:
Public Water Supplies, subject to the following
conditions:
A.
This variance will expire
5 years from the
date of this order, or at such earlier time as fluoride
standards are revised.
3
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 he blended with its current well
source 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 mgIl.
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 notice 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.
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 he 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
the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in PCB 80—183,
dated ___________________________, understand and accept the said
Order, realizing that such acceptance renders all terms and con-
ditions thereto binding and enforceable.
Petitioner
4
By:
_________________
Title
Date
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Nloffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order we;e adopted
on the
~
day of
~
,
1980 by a vote of ~—O
Illinois Polluti
Board
