ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January 21,
1988
CITY OF EAST MOLINE,
Petitioner,
v
)
PCB 87—128
ILLINOIS 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 City of East Moline
(City)
on August
14,
1987 as
amended October
5,
1987.
The City seeks
a two—year
variance from
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 602.105
“Standards of Issuance”
and
35 Iii. Adm. Code 602.106(b)
as
they relate to the City’s
excursion of the 0.10 mg/l maximum allowable concentration
(MAC)
for trihalomethanes
in drinking water
as specified in
35 Ill.
Adm. Code
604.202.
The purpose
of
the variance
is to allow the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
to remove the
City from restricted
status, thus allowing Agency
issuance of
permits for water main extensions during the period
in which the
City investigates and implements
a plan for bringing its system
into compliance with the THM standard.
On October
9, 1987,
the Agency filed
its Recommendation in
support of variance subject to conditions.
Hearing was waived
and none has been held.
East Moline owns and operates
a public water supply
treatment plant
(Plant)
located
in Rock Island County, East
Moline,
Illinois.
The Plant provides clarified,
filtered and
disinfected water
to approximately 22,000 residents and 100
businesses
in the city.
The City’s source of
raw water
is the Mississippi River.
Raw water
is drawn from the Mississippi River through
a
30
inch
diameter
intake line
to the raw water pumping station.
Presently,
the Plant has the capacity
to pump and treat 10
million gallons of water daily,
but on an annual average
treats
four million gallons per day.
The water distribution system
extending
from the Plant consists of approximately 375,000 lineal
feet of water main and 600 fire hydrants.
The treatment process at the Plant first begins at the
pumping
station where powdered activated carbon
is added
to the
85—191
—2—
raw water.
The raw water containing activated carbon
is then
pumped through two pipes
to two separate rapid—mix units.
Lime
is added
to one rapid—mix unit and alum is added
to the other
rapid—mix unit.
The flow from each rapid—mix unit subsequently
flows
through separate but identical paddle—wheel flocculation
basins followed by rectangular settling basins.
Chlorine
is
added
at approximately the mid—point of the clarification
units.
The treated water from the settling units
is combined and
flows to the rapid sand filtration units.
After filtration,
the
water
is stored
in
a “clearwell” before being pumped to the
distribution system.
Post—chlorination does occur
after
filtration to maintain a chlorine residual in the distribution
system.
Finally, backwash water from the filters,
sludge from
the settling tanks and drain lines from the various process
units
are discharged from the Plant into an adjacent drainage ditch
which gravity flows
to the Mississippi River.
As
a result
of the chlorine disinfection process used to
treat raw water,
THM5 are formed.
The generalized reaction for
the formation of THM5
is free chlorine,
which combines with
organic precursors such as humic and fulvic substances
to produce
THMs.
The organic precursors which naturally occur
in the raw
water pumped
to the Plant are naturally occurring in the water
drawn from the Mississippi
River.
In addition to the generalized
reaction which produces THMs,
the City asserts that the following
factors serve to
influence the formation of THMs and
THM
levels
in East Moline’s public water supply.
1.
Temperature
—
the
rate
of
formation
of
THMs
increases with temperature
and
thus generally
are higher during the Summer.
2.
pH
—
higher pH values increase the rate of THM
formation.
3.
Organic precursors
—
type and concentration in
source
water
influences
the
rate
of
THM
formation.
4.
Free chlorine concentration
—
free chlorine is
necessary
for
the
formation,
however,
free
chloride
residuals beyond
the chlorine demand
has
little
impact
on
the
rate
of
formation.
Initial
mixing
and
reactor
design
influences
the
rate
of
formation
and
thus
the
concentration after
treatment.
The water currently supplied to the public by the City
periodically exceeds the THM limit of 0.10 mg/i.
However,
at
other
times, the THM limit in East Moline’s public water supply
is below this limit.
Since June of 1982, East Moline has
conducted quarterly analysis
of THM concentrations in the public
85— 192
—j—
water
supply.
The average quarterly THM concentrations for
samples taken between June
7, 1982,
and December
30,
1986,
are
reflected below.
Date
Average THM Concentration
Sample Collected
(mg/l)*
06/07/82
0.205
02/20/84
0.138
06/04/84
0.206
08/27/84
0.172
10/05/84
0.175
10/23/84
0.153
11/06/84
0.074
12/18/84
0.125
02/11/85
0.084
03/25/85
0.022
06/20/85
0.223
10/11/85
0.244
03/03/86
0.095
12/30/86
0.153
*Milligrams per liter, based
on
0.148
equal
average
average of four distribution
concentration, mg/i
samples per quarter on date
indicated.
By letter dated September
25,
1984,
the City was advised by
the Agency that East Moline was being placed on restricted
status.
The City reports that since being placed on restricted
status, East Moline has taken
steps
to control the concentration
of THM5
in
its public water
supply.
These efforts included
increasing
the amount of carbon, relocating
the point of
chlorination, removing sludge from the sedimentation basins on a
more frequent basis
and by better controlling the chlorine feed
rate.
In its October
9,
1987 Recommendation, the Agency notes that
the most
recent quarterly analysis (presumably taken after those
listed above)
indicate that THM levels
in the City’s water are
below the 0.10 mg/i MAC.
However,
the Agency further notes that
restricted status cannot be lifted absent grant of variance,
since compliance with the standard
is calculated on the basis
of
the average
of four consecutive quarterly samples.
The City has submitted the following schedule of compliance
activities
to meet the
THM
standard by the end
of the proposed
two—year variance period:
85—193
—4—
October,
1987:
East Moline will install
a new rapid mixer
in its public water supply treatment system to provide for the
addition of
lime and alum for controlling trihalomethanes.
The
estimated cost
of purchase and installation for
the rapid mixer
is $7,700.
January,
1988:
East Moline
is currently conducting pilot
studies
to determine the necessary steps
for achieving compliance
with
the trihalomethane regulations.
East Moline will complete
pilot studies
in January, 1988.
These studies will focus
on the
use of different chemicals and chemical mixtures
to reduce
trihalomethane levels in East Moline’s public water supply.
The
cost
of these studies has been estimated at
$15,000.
February,
1988:
East Moline’s consultants will submit
a
final report summarizing the pilot studies conducted
for the
control of trihalomethanes.
The estimated cost for
this report
has been estimated
at $15,000.
March,
1988:
East Moline will review the pilot studies
previously submitted and forward the studies
to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency for
its review.
June,
1988:
East Moline will apply
for construction permits
from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency for undertaking
those
steps recommended
in the pilot study report
for the control
of trihalomethanes.
September,
1988:
Begin steps for achieving compliance with
the trihalomethane regulations.
No
time period specified:
Complete construction steps;
achieve compliance with trihalomethane regulations.
The City asserts that to keep:
East
Moline
on
restricted
status
while
it
is
investigating
methods
for
the
control
of
THMs
in
its
public
w•ater
supply
imposes
an
arbitrary
and
unreasonable hardship upon East Moline.
Restricted
status
prevents
East
Moline
from
expanding,
extending
or
modifying
its
water
distribution
system.
Recently, East Moline has lost much of its
industrial
base
and
has
suffered
a resulting
loss
in
water
users.
This has served to increase water
rates
while
it
discourages
both
industry
and
residents
from
using
the
public
water
supply
system.
As a result,
East Moline does not have the
funding
required
to
implement
many
necessary
improvements
to
the
water
treatment
plant
and
distribution system.
85—194
East
Moline
is
in
the position where
it
needs
to
attract
new
industry
to
improve
the
depressed
economic conditions
in that City,
in part caused by
a
loss
of
industry.
However,
by
being
placed
on
restricted
status,
East
Moline
is
effectively
prohibited
from
establishing
new
industry
as
it
cannot
modify
its
water
distribution
system
to
accommodate
that
industry.
This situation
is only
serving
to
worsen
the
economic
climate
in
East
Moline,
and
imposes
an
arbitrary and unreasonable
hardship upon East Moline.
The City further asserts
its belief
that grant of variance
will not pose
a threat to the health of
its water
users,
submitting
in support thereof USEPA’s rationale for setting the
0.10 THM interim standard in 1979 as published in 44 Fed.
Reg.
68690—68707.
In its Recommendation in support of grant of variance,
the
Agency stated that it had no disagreement with the City’s factual
allegations.
The Agency stated
its belief that “an incremental
increase in the allowable concentration for
the contaminant
in
question should cause no significant health risk for the limited
population served by new water main extensions
for the time
period
of
this recommended variance.”
Additionally,
the Agency
observed that:
grant
of
variance
from
restricted
status
should
affect
only
those
users
who
consume
water
drawn
from any newly extended water lines.
This variance
should
not
affect
the
status
of
the
rest
of
Petitioner’s population drawing water from existing
water
lines,
except
insofar
as
the variance by its
conditions
may
hasten
compliance.
In
so
saying,
the Agency emphasizes
that
it continues to place
a
high priority on compliance with the standard.
The
Agency
believes
that
the
hardship
resulting
from
denial
of
the
recommended
variance
from
the
effect of being on Restricted Status would outweigh
the
injury
of
the
public
from
grant
of
that
variance.
In
light
of
the
cost
to
the Petitioner
of
treatment
of
its
current water
supply
and,
the
likelihood
of
no
significant
injury
to
the public
from
continuation
of
the
present
level
of
the
contaminant
inquestion
in
the Petitioner’s
water
for
the
limited
time
period
of
the
variance,
the
Agency concludes that denial of
a variance from the
effects
of
Restricted
Status
would
impose
an
arbitrary or unreasonable hardship upon Petitioner.
85—195
—6—
The Board notes that this petition provides no detail as to
the number of new connections expected
if variance
is granted,
and contains little data supporting
the City’s economic hardship
claims.
On the other
hand,
the City has already implemented
various measures
to solve
its
THfI problem, measures which appear
to have resulted
in reduction
of THM5
in the water delivered to
its customers.
Given the fact that the City
is well on the way
to achieving compliance, has firmly committed to continue its
compliance efforts,
the limited environmental
impact during the
limited
term of this variance, the Board finds that denial
of
variance would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.
The Board notes that while the City has committed to
applying for permits
in June,
1988,
that the conditions suggested
by the Agency would not have required such application until
March,
1989.
The Order
imposes the earlier deadline.
The Board
also notes that neither the City’s nor the Agency’s schedule
provided time
for
the four quarterly samples necessary to
demonstrate compliance.
Therefore,
the Board will extend the
variance for
an extra year,
until January
21,
1991,
solely to
allow
the City to demonstrate compliance; paragraph
(g)
of the
order
still requires all construction activities to be completed
by January 21,
1990.
A three year variance
is accordingly
granted subject
to conditions similar
to those outlined
by the
Agency.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions
of law in this matter.
ORDER
I.
Petitioner, the City of
East Moline,
is hereby granted
variance from
35
Ill. Adm. Code
Sections 602.105(a)
“Standards
of Issuance” and 602.106(b)
“Restricted Status”
solely as they relate to excursions of the 0.10
mg/ltrihalomethane
(THM)
standard of Section 604.202, subject
to
the following conditions:
(a)
This variance terminates on January 21,
1991, or when
analysis pursuant to 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 605.105(a)
shows
compliance with the trihalomethane standard, whichever
comes first;
(b)
In consultation with
the Agency, Petitioner shall
continue its sampling program to determine as accurately
as possible the level
of THM in its finished water;
(c)
Compliance shall
be achieved no later than January 21,
1991;
(d)
On or before April
1,
1988,
Petitioner
shall submit
the
final report of
its consultants concerning the pilot
85—196
studies described in the foregoing Opinion
to the
Agency’s Division of Public Water Supplies,
FOS, at 2200
Churchill Road,
Springfield,
Illinois
62794—9276;
(e)
On or before July 1,
1988, Petitioner shall apply to
IEPA for all necessary construction permits.
The
deadline
for applying for said permits for construction
of treatment facilities may be extended by the Agency in
writing for good cause shown.
Notwithstanding this
provision Petitioner must comply in full with paragraph
(g), below;
(f)
Within two months after each construction permit
is
issued by IEPA, DPWS,
the Petitioner shall,
if
necessary, advertise for bids,
to be submitted within
60
days,
from contractors to do the necessary work
described in the construction permit.
The Petitioner
shall accept appropriate bids within
a reasonable
time.
Petitioner shall notify
IEPA,
DPWS, within
30
days of each action,
of:
1) advertisements for bids,
2)
names of successful bidders,
and
3) whether Petitioner
accepted the bids;
(g)
Construction pursuant
to said construction permits shall
begin within
a reasonable time of bids being accepted,
but in any case,
construction of all installations,
changes or additions necessary to achieve compliance
with the maximum allowable concentration of
TFIMs shall
begin no later than July 1,
1989; and shall be completed
no later than January 21,
1990;
(h)
Pursuant to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 606.201,
in its first set
of water bills or within three months after the date of
this Variance Order, whichever occurs first, 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 35
Ill. Adm. Code
602.105(a)
Standards of Issuance and
35
Ill.
Adm. Code
602.106(b) Restricted Status,
as they relate
to the 0.10
mg/l THM standard;
(i)
Pursuant to
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 606.201,
in its first set
of water bills or within three months after the date of
this Order, whichever occurs first,
and every three
months
thereafter, Petitioner will send to each user of
its public water supply as written notice to the effect
that Petitioner
is not
in compliance with the THM
standard.
The notice shall state the THM content
in
samples taken since the last notice period during which
samples were taken;
85—197
—8—
(j)
That Petitioner
shall take all reasonable measures with
its existing equipment to minimize the level
of THM in
its finished water; and
(k)
The Petitioner shall provide written progress reports to
IEPA, DPWS,
FOS every six months concerning steps taken
to comply with this Order.
Progress reports shall quote
each of
said paragraphs and immediately below each
paragraph state what steps have been taken to comply
with each paragraph.
2.
Within 45 days of the date of
this Order, Petitioner shall
execute and forward to Thomas Davis,
Enforcement Programs,
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
2200 churchill
Road,
Springfield, Illinois 62794—9276,
a Certification of
Acceptance and Agreement to be bound
to all terms and
conditions of this variance.
The 45—day period shall be held
in abeyance during any period that this matter is being
appealed.
Failure to execute and forward the Certificate
within
45 days
renders this variance void and of no force and
effect as
a shield against enforcement of
rules from which
variance was granted.
The form of said Certification shall
be as follows:
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 87—128, January
21,
1988.
Petitioner
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
Section 41
of the Environmental Protection Act, Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1985 ch.
111 1/2 par. 1041,
provides for appeal
of final
85—198
—9—
Orders of the Board within 35 days.
The Rules of the Supreme
Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
J.
D.
Durnelle and B
Forcade dissented.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the
ove Opinion and Order was
adopted on
the
~/J2-~
day of ________________________,
1988,
by a
Dorothy M.
unn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
85—199