ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 7, 1980
BRADLEY HEIGHTS WATfl SYSTEM, INC.,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
PCB 79—107
)
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
I,
Respondent.
MR.
STEVEN
L.
NORDQUIST:
NORDQUIST
& ANDERSON appeared on
behalf of Petitioner.
MS
•
NANCY
J.
BENNETT,
ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY
GENERAL, appeared
on behalf of the Agency.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Dumelle):
Petitioner has requested a variance from Rule 305:
Chlorination of
Chapter
6:
Public
Water
Supplies
and
Technical
Policy
Statement
212
D
•
2:
Hydropneumatic
Storage
Facilities
adopted
by
the
Agency
under
authority
delegated
by
the
Board
under
Rule
212:
Design,
Operation
and
Maintenance
Criteria
of
Chapter
6:
Public
Water
Supplies.
The
Agency
has
recommended
that
the
variance
be
granted
in
part
and
denied
in
part.
A
hearing
was
held
at
City
Hall
in
Rockford
on
November
19,
1979.
Petitioner
operates
a
public
water
supply
which
serves
approximately
50
families
in
an
unincorporated
area
near
Rockford
(R.12).
The
supply
consists
of
two
pumps
which
draw
fran
wells
which
are
125
and
450
feet
deep
(R.25).
Both
pqmps
direct
water
into
one
main
which
consists
of
50
year
old
small
size
pipe
running
directly
to
service
connections
behind
each
customer’s
home
(R. 26).
The
supply
does
not
include
any
hydrants
(R.26).
Fluoride
is
presently
being
added,
but chlorine
is
not
(R.31).
The
main
runs
generally
behind
each
home
(R.
27).
All
homes
in
the
system
discharge
to
sewers
in
front
of
each
home
which
carry
sewage
to
facilities
operated
by
the
Rockford
Sanitary
District
(R.77).
The
pumps
lie
100
feet
above
the
flood
stage
of
the
37—357
—4’—
Rock River, and no surrounding subdivision is higher
(R. 76).
Whenever a break occurs in a main, the area round the break
is cleaned and low pressure is avoided (R.32).
Pressure in
the system is then dropped
to
zero
and
the
customers
are
instructed not to drink the water until the certified
operator
has
received
satisfactory
results
from
bacteriological
samples
(R.33).
Petitioner’s
present
fluoridation
metering
system
can
be
used
to
temporarily
chlorinate
the
system
in
the
event
of
an
emergency
(Petition,
p.2).
A soft red material, identified as nuisance bacteria
(R.
29,
Ex.2) pervades the system (R.55,91).
Chlorination would
kill this bacteria and cause it to slough off (R.31,92).
The
bacteria
could
be
removed
with
mechanical
cleaning.
One
estimate
to
do
this
cleaning
came
to
$20,000
(R.71).
Hydrants could be added to aid in flushing the system at
a cost of $5—8,000 without including necessary landscaping
(R.75).
Mechanical cleaning might damage the weaker
portions of the mains
(R. 99).
Under present circumstances,
flushing would have to be done through each home in the
system
and
might
cause
damage
there
(R. 95).
The
entire
system
could
be
replaced
at
a
cost
of
approximately
$60—70,000 (R.98).
While chlorination would remove the
bacteria, the sloughing off process would take at least 3-5
months (R.87).
Petitioner feels that it should not be required to pursue
any of these alternatives.
A bill which is presently
pending before the General Assembly could require the entire
area
to
be
annexed
to
the
City
of
Rockford.
The
bill
is
expected to be adopted into law
(R. 21).
Petitioner feels
that installation of chlorination at an initial cost of
$12,100 and a yearly cost of $5,500, which translates to
costs of $220 and $100 per family respectively (Petition—
attachment), or any of the costs listed above for cleaning
would be unreasonable in this case.
Petitioner claims that
it
knows
of
no
health
problems
which
can
be
attributed
to
its
presently
unchlorinated
system
(R.14).
In
addition
Petitioner feels that chlorination would endanger the system
by causing the formation of trihalomethanes
(R.143) although
no evidence was
submitted
to
show
that
the
necessary
organics occur
in
the
system to form these compounds.
The Agency feels that installation of a hypochlorinator
would cost $500—iSO
(R.157).
The Agency admits that
Petitioner’s lack of hydrants makes its system unique but
feels that the system could be flushed through individual
taps (R.160).
In its Recommendation the Agency places an
estimate for installation of chlorination at $20.50 per
family initially and $1.50 per year thereafter (Paragraph
8).
37—358
—3-.
The Board concludes
that
denial of a variance from Rule 305
would constitute arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.
Petitioner’
s
circumstances
are
unique
in
that
the
present
water
system
m~ybe replaced in the near future with the
passage of Senate Bill 1404. Faced with that contingency,
Petitioner should not be required to incur capital expenses
for chlorination.
Because Petitioner’s system is so small,
incidences of contamination should be avoided through
initiation of a program to prevent cross connections. While
the record contains substantial evidence of the need to
postpone
installation
of
expanded
hydropneumatic
storage
facilities, the Board concludes that the Agency alone has
jurisdiction to grant initial relief from this requirement.
The
Technical
Policy
Statement
which
underlies
this
requirement
is
an
Agency
rule
which
has
never
been
proposed
to or adopted by the Board.
In an Opinion dated January 10,
1979, the Attorney General looked with favor on the Board’s
own interpretation of Rule 212 when the Board
adopted
the
Rule.
In its Opinion in R73—13 dated January 3,
1975 the
Board
stated
that
Technical
Policy
Statements
should
be
chal lenged
in
the
context
of
a
permit
appeal.
The
Board
concludes
that
a
period
of
two
years
should
provide
ample
time to await the outcome of Senate Bill 1404 and the
accompanying replacement of Petitioner’s present system
after annexation.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
1.
Petitioner is hereby granted a variance from Ruló 305
of Chapter 6:
Public Water Supplies for two years from
the date of this Order subject to the following
conditions:
A)
Within 60 days of the date of this Order,
Petitioner shall submit an acceptable plan to
the Agency which shall detail Petitioner’s
program to minimize contamination through
sanitation practices and the prevention of
cross connections.
B)
Within 45 days of the date of this Order,
Petitioner shall execute a certification of
acceptance and agreement to be
bound
to the
terms and conditions of this variance.
This
45
day
period shall be held in abeyance if this
matter
is
appealed.
The
certification
shall
be
forwarded
to
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency, Division of Public Water Supplies, 2200
Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706 and shall
read as follows:
-
37—359
CERTIFICATION
I,
(We), _________________________
___,
having
read and fully understanding the Order in PCB 79—107, hereby
accept that Order and agree to be bound by
all
of its terms
and conditions,
SIGNED
TITLE
DATE
2,
Petitioner~srequest
for a variance from Technical Policy
statement 212 D.2 is hereby denied,
IT IS SO ORDERED~
I,
Christan
L,
Moffett, Clerk of the
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board, hereby c~rtifythat
t
e a ove Opinion and
Order
were adopted on the
1~’’
day of
____________________,
1980
by a vote of
____________
Illinois Pollution
trol Board
37—360