ILLIN~i~

~ PC~

~1ON CONTROL BOARD

Dec~mbc~

3

1981

CITY OF ONEIDA,

)

)

PCB

81~154

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

FROTECTION

AGENCY,

OPINION AND

ORDER

OF TRF BOAPO

(by J~

Anderson):

This matter

comes heforo the Board on the variance

petition

filed by the

City

of OneiCa

(City) October

5,

1981

as

amended

October

14,

1981.

The Vtll~g’~seeks variance from

the

2.0 mg/i

fluoride concentration

li~ni~

ci P~u1e304(b) (4)

of Chapter

6:

Public Water

Supplies~. S~ch~‘ariancehad previously

been

granted in PCB

79~158 (1ovccbcr

1,

1979).

In

its

Recommendation

of October

16,

1981 as

r~sd October 28

1981,

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protect~

‘Agency)

aupports

grant

of

variance.

Hearing

wa~

none

has

been

held,

The City of

OneiO~’, ~‘~od

ir Knox County with

a population

of about 780,

essenti~ ~

~sa

that circumstances

remain

unchanged since

79~~15~

~L vate: users are supplied

with

water whose

fluoride

Ct~ii~

~ngcs

from t8 to 3.8 mg/i.

Bone

char adsorption

contirvs~

i~

h~

~eweC

as the most

effective

compliance option,

alt

~

w~e~esits _979 installation

cost estimate

of $255,vJO s1

IC be iccreased 25,

with a

resultant

increase in rnc~itb~yuser fees of some

$21.00,

Finally,

the Village

reasserts

it3

~e~ief that the consumption of

water

with fluoride

at these

levels will have no adverse

effect on

the

health of its

water

users~

The

Board

again

f~nd~

t~itt

the

iiilage

has

demonstrated

that

immediate

compliance

w~v1d icpoce

a:i

arbitrary

and

unreasonable

hardship

on

its

water

uaer~

Iha

A~sncy acknowledges

that

this

petition

falls

in line w~:~

rt cases in which

the

Board

has

granted 5 year

variance’

he

~

rrrinicipalities,

but

believes

variance can be

recommenkC

i

,

throagh

January

1,

1984, the

current

deadline

for

s~wo~ni~.

ander Section 1416 of

the

Safe

Drinking

Water

Act,

42

t~.C

300(g)5.

For the reasons

stated

in

previous

opinions,

consistent

with

S1415

of the SDWA

which has

no

deadline,

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.)

44~18I

---

This

Opine

cn:tte~er tn~Err’tr

i

d~ngsof fact

and

conclusions

of

la~’in this mat:. ~r

1.

Petitioner,

the City of Oneida,

is ;rented a

five year

variance

from the 2~0mg/i caximue fluoride esreentration

standard

of Rule

304(~(4)of Chapter

6.

~

;:~c

~tan ispplies,

subject to

the

following conditions:

a~

B?ginn~ngon or about Juns

~,

382, and at

six

month intervals thereafter, the Petitzcncr shall

communicate with the Agency in order to ascertain

whether fluoride removal techniques specifically

applicable to small systems have been developed and

identified.

As expeditiously after such identification

as is practicable, Petitioner shall sabnit to the Agency

a program

(with increments of progre~s)for bringing its

system into compliance with fluoride nt~darde~

b.

Petitioner shall take all rCCEC1~15measures

with

its existing equipi~entto minim so the

evel

of

fluoride

in its water supply and shall no; ~~ilowthe

fluoride

concentration to exced 4~Oeg

c.

Pursuait to Fule ‘~3~O~

~er

6,

on

or

before Jaunnry 3C~J~62~

s~ ~

nths

thereafter

PeH r~uer

i~

l~

~es

af

its

public

water suosly a wnit~er

nn~c

~

fleet

that

Petitioner has beer g~nr ~ by

tlon

Control

Board

c~

~arianae

rtcm

:~

•

s~ramum

fluoride

standa~d.

The

rot;.

r.

~.

a

average

content

of fl~ori~in

~e~

~

fist

notice

period dur~njwhct

~.

2.

Within forty~fi~7edays or the ~

toe Order,

Petitioner

shall execute and forward to the ~C.~ir~ofl

Environmental

Protection

Agency, PWS Enforcement Proqra~

~,

Carrchiil

Road,

Springfield,

IL

62706,

a Certificatn a~d

rCO

Ofirce

and

Agreement

to be bound to all terms and conditilons of this

variance.

This

forty~fiveday period shall be held

tin

arey~noe

for any

period

this

matter

is being appealed.

The fo:r

~asificate

shall

be

as

follows:

I,

(We),

,

having

read

the

Order

of

the

ilL

nuis

Pollution.

Control

oa~

in

PCB

81—154,

dated

_______

ardor

C

and

accept

the

said

Order,

realizing that such acceptance r~rflrsall

terms and

conditions

thereto binding and enforceable.

Petitioner

44~182

---

By:

Authorized

?gen.t

Title

Date

I, Christan L.

Moffett, Cle:k of the I~li

:C

efirtien

Control Board, her9~ycertify t~iatthe abo’n~nt

ir

and Order was

adopted g~~nthe

~?

‘~

day of

~ht~vv~Lr

*

1981 by a

vote

of~S-O

I

-

CbrLt~r.

44~483