ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May
1,
1980
VILLAGE
OF WATAGA,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB
80—30
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr. Satchell):
This matter comes before the Board upon a variance petition
filed February
13,
1980 by the Village of Wataga.
The petition
reauests
a variance from 2.0 mg/i maximum fluoride content limita-
tion of Rule 304 of Chapter
6:
Public Water Supplies.
On March
21,
1980 the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
recommended
that the variance be granted through January
1,
1981.
The hearing
was waived and no public comment has been received.
The Village of Wataga is situated in Knox County about seven
miles northwest of Galesburq.
Its public water supply serves
ahouL
390 people with water
from an 840 foot deep well.
Its fin—
ished water shows
an averaqe fluoride level of 2.2 mg/i,
in excess
of the standard of 2.0 mg/i.
Wataqa has submitted an application
for a Farmers Home Administration grant to construct a new well
and a 150,000 gallon elevated storage
tank.
According to the
Illinois State Water Survey and from Agency records,
the Agency
states that the ground water
in the area is likely to contain
fluoride at or above this level
(Rec.
1).
The Agency believes
that the cost of extending a service main from Galesburg
is unrea-
sonable
(Rec.
1).
The Agency agrees that fluoride
nt the levels
shown
in Wataqa’s
water presents no threat to health
(Rec,
2)
.
Aside
from dental
mottling there are no known harnful
cff:ects from drinking water at
levels up to
8 mq/l fluoride.
The
c~ccvbelieves that at the level
of fluoride
in Wataqa’ s water there
cLcnld be no noticeable fluorosis
in the community,
or if it is present:
it
should be
at barely notice-
able levels
(Rec.
3).
The recommended treatment proce~n~is adsorption on activated
alumina.
This would cost an estim,
~275,000
or $700 per user.
To operate and pay
for
the instali~r ~ would require additional
revenue of $65,000 annually or $14.
r month per user
(Pet.
1).
The Agency agrees that fluoride rc~c~
1
eauipment is difficult to
operate and control and does not bc
~:that the level of fluoride
—2—
present in t1~o Wataqa supply warrants its installation
(Rec.
2)
The
3oard
has
previously
found
that activated alumina adsorption
has
been
used
in
only
a
few
full
scale
treatment
plants
in
Cali--
fornia
and
Arizona.
The
Administrator
of
the
United
States
En-
vironmental
Protection
Agency
(USEPA)
has not found that this
is
a
generally
available
treatment
technology.
Turnberry
Utilities,
Inc.
v.
EPA,
PCB
79-257,
March
20,
1980.
The
Board
finds
that
re-
quiring immediate reduction of the fluoride level would pose an
arbitrary
and
unreasonable
hardship.
The
fluoride
standard
is
based
on
that
Dromulgated
by
USEPA
under
the
federal
Safe
Drinking
Water Act.
Illinois has been dele-
gated primacy for enforcement.
One of the conditions
is that
Illinois maintain a program at least as stringent as that of the
federal government.
The Agency recommends
that the variance be
granted through January
1,
1981, the deadline for exemptions under
the Safe Drinking Water Act.
However,
there
is no deadline for
variances
(42 U.S.C.
§300(g);
40 CFR part
142).
The Board finds
that there is no treatment technique which
is generally available,
taking costs into consideration, which will reduce to the standard
the
fluoride
content
of
the
raw
water
sources reasonably available
to
Wataga.
The
variance
will
he
granted
through
March
31,
1985.
Wataga
will
be
required
to
submit
a
progress
report
to
the
Agency
approximately
eight
months
before
the
expiration
date
of
this variance.
It will also be required to oeriodically advise
its users of the existence of this variance,
current level of
fluoride in its water and that there
is a possibility of fluorosis,
including
dental
mottling.
This
Opinion
constitutes
the
Board’s
finding
of
fact
and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
Petitioner,
the Village of Wataga is qranted
a variance
from
the 2.0 mg/l maxiumum fluoride concentration standard of Rule
304
of Chapter
6:
Public Water Supplies,
subject to the following
conditions:
1.
This
variance
will
expire
March
31,
1985.
2.
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 con-
centration
to exceed
4.0 rna/l.
—3—
3.
On or before June
30,
1980
and every six 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 or during 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
mottling can occur at levels in excess of
4.o
mg/i.
4.
On or about August
1, 1984 Petitioner shall submit to the
Environmental Protection Agency a progress report which
shall identify sources
of water which are reasonably
available and treatment techniques for fluoride reduction
which are generally available.
The progress report shall
include cost estimates
of at least one plan to bring
Petitioner’s water supply into compliance with whatever
fluoride standard exists at that time.
5.
Petitioner and the Environmental Protection Agency shall
devise
a mutually agreeable schedule for sampling of
Petitioner’s public water supply.
6.
Within forty-five day of the date of this Order, Petition-
er shall execute and forward to the Illinois Environmental
Protection 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
80-30, hereby accept
that Order and agree
to be bound by all of its terms and
conditions.
SIGNED
TITLE
DATE
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
—4—
I
,
(~Iiri~Lmi
L.
Moiic’LL,
C1’rk
of
Lhe
Ti
1 inois
Pollution
Control
hoard,
hereby
certi
ly
the
above
Opin
i on
and
Order
were
adopted on the
~
day
of
___________,
1980
by
a
vote
of
Christan
L. Moff
Clerk
Illinois Pollution
ontrol Board
