ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May 23,
    1991
    CITY OF NT.
    VERNON,
    )
    )
    Petitioner,
    PCB 90—228
    v.
    )
    (Variance)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    OPINION
    AND
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J. Anderson):
    This matter comes before the Board on the City of Mt.
    Vernon’s (“Mt. Vernon”) December
    7,
    1990 petition and January 25,
    1991 amended petition for variance in relation to its public
    water supply.
    More specifically, Mt. Vernon seeks relief from 35
    Ill.
    Adm.
    Code 602.105(a),
    Standards for Issuance,
    and 35
    Ill.
    Adm. Code 602.106(a), Restricted Status, but only as they relate
    to section 611.310(c),
    Total Trihaloinethanes
    (TTHM).
    No hearing
    was held in this matter.
    On April
    1,
    1991, the Illinois
    Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”)
    filed its
    recom:mendation that variance be granted with conditions.
    On May 23,
    1990, the Agency took a sample of Mt. Vernon’s
    public water supply.
    Mt. Vernon was notified on June 18,
    1990
    that it would be placed on the Restricted Status List for
    exceeding the 0.10 mg/i maximum contaminant level
    (MCL)
    for TTHM.
    After being notified of the exceedance,
    Petitioner placed its
    water treatment plant out of service and obtained all of its
    water from the Rend Lake Intercity Water System.
    As a result,
    Mt. Vernon was removed from the Restricted Status List.
    (Agency
    Rec. p.
    4).
    After shutting down its water treatment facility, Mt. Vernon
    developed a plan to implement improvements at the plant; namely,
    to reduce the
    TTHM content to acceptable levels.
    In order to do
    so, the city applied for a permit to the Agency to install an
    aqua ammonia feed system on July 5,
    1990.
    The Agency granted
    this permit
    (#0064—FY1991)
    and Mt. Vernon completed installation
    of the aforementioned device on January 17,
    1991.
    (Amended Pet.
    p.
    2).
    Despite the installation,
    if Mt. Vernon starts up the
    revamped water treatment facility it will,
    without variance,
    again be placed on restricted status until
    it shows compliance
    with the TTHN standard, which
    is based upon a running average of
    four sample sets from four consecutive quarters.
    That is,
    even
    though the water quality may now meet present standards,
    utilizing the prior sample results of the now modified plant will
    cause the facility to be out of compliance with the sample
    122—247
    2
    requirements imposed by the public water regulations.
    Thus Mt.
    Vernon seeks a variance so that the water treatment plant, as
    modified, may be returned to service without Mt. Vernon being
    placed on the Restricted Status list.
    (Amend. Pet.
    p. 2,3).
    Mt. Vernon alleges that no negative environmental impacts
    will result by the issuance of this variance in that no adverse
    effects will be imposed upon human,
    animal or plant life.
    The
    city maintains that all pertinent regulations will be met with
    the exception of the consecutive four quarters standard.
    The May
    23,
    1990 TTHM count of 0.176 mg/i caused the running average of
    the analyses of four quarterly samples from July 23,
    1987 through
    May 23,
    1990 to be 0.116, mg/i,
    thus, exceeding the 0.10 mg/i
    standard.*
    The Agency concurs with this assessment and states
    that granting the requested variance would impose no significant
    injury to the public or the environment for the limited time
    period requested.
    (Amended. Pet.
    Ex.
    B; Agency Rec. p.
    7,8).
    Both the Agency and Mt. Vernon likewise assert that denial
    of a variance would impose an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship
    upon Mt.
    Vernon.
    The City states that, without the water
    treatment plant in operation as a readily available “backup”, the
    system reliability is substantially lessened.
    Mt. Vernon is 18
    miles away from Rend Lake and in the event of any problems with
    that source or its system, the City would be unable to service
    its citizens without delay in starting up the plant.
    In addition
    to its community of over 7,000,
    Mt. Vernon also serves six other
    municipalities and rural water supply systems.
    Moreover,
    regardless of whether its water treatment facility is
    operational, the City continues to incur the costs of its plant
    under its bonds for debt service in addition to personnel costs.
    (Amend.
    Pet.
    p.
    3,
    4; Agency Rec.
    p.
    7).
    Mt. Vernon further states that it has received industrial
    plant additions to its system in the past four years and
    currently has an industrial prospect with which it has been
    working over the past nine months that would use an estimated one
    million gallons per day.
    Such a demand could not be met absent a
    functioning water treatment plant.
    This is in addition to other
    commercial and industrial prospects which are currently
    considering locating within the City’s water service area.
    Mt.
    Vernon maintains that its commercial and industrial prospects are
    exceedingly good, and it has every reason to believe that several
    of its prospects will be successful,
    thereby adding substantially
    to the demand of water within the municipality.
    In this vein,
    Mt. Vernon asserts that its water system operates substantially
    better with additional supplies from its water treatment plant,
    *
    The
    Agency
    states,
    apparently
    inadvertantly,
    that
    the
    four
    quarters running average was 0.176 mg/l.
    See Agency Rec. p.
    5.
    122—248
    3
    which
    is centrally located and which provides pressure patterns
    which decrease main breakage and provide for less variation and
    better system reliability.
    (Amend. Pet. p.
    3-5).
    Of equal significance, the Agency states that issuance of
    this variance will comport with federal
    law.
    Since the variance
    is only from restricted status,
    which is a state regulation,
    and
    not from the national primary drinking water standards,
    it would
    not contravene the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act or
    the USEPA Drinking Water Regulations
    (4OCFR Part 141).
    (Agency
    Rec.
    p.
    8,9).
    The Board finds that Mt. Vernon has presented adequate proof
    the immediate compliance would impose an arbitrary or
    unreasonable hardship.
    The likelihood of adverse public health
    or other environmental effects is minimal, while the detrimental
    effects of being placed on restricted status until four quarterly
    samples from the revamped treatment system would be substantial.
    Finally, we agree that, pursuant to the Ill. Rev.
    Stat.
    1989
    chap 111-1/2 par.
    35(a),. granting this variance is consistent
    with federal law.
    Accordingly, the Board will grant this
    variance subject to conditions.
    This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and
    conclusions of law in this matter.
    ORDER
    The Board hereby grants the City of Mt. Vernon a variance
    from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 602.
    105(a)
    and 35 Ill.
    Adm. Code
    602.106(a), but only as they relate to 35 Ill.
    Adm. Code
    611.310(c), the Total Trihalomethane standard, and subject to the
    following conditions:
    A.
    This variance shall be granted for 15 months in order
    to give the Petitioner one extra quarter for testing samples so
    it will be able to show the required four quarterly samples to be
    in compliance with the maximum contaminant level.
    B.
    In consultation with the Agency, Petitioner shall
    continue its sampling program to determine as accurately as
    possible to level of TTHMs in its public water supply through the
    water treatment facilities.
    Until this variance expires,
    Petitioner shall collect quarterly samples of its water from its
    distribution system at locations approved by the Agency in
    accordance with 35 Ill.
    Adm. Code 611.680.
    Petitioner shall
    collect quarterly samples from each location separately and shall
    have them analyzed by a laboratory certified by the State of
    Illinois for TTHM analysis so as to determine the concentration
    of the contaminant in question..
    The results of the analyses
    shall be reported to the Compliance Assurance Section, Division
    of Public Water Supplies, 2200 Churchill Road,
    IEPA,
    Springfield,
    122—
    249
    4
    Illinois
    62794-9276, within 30 days of receipt of each analysis.
    The running average of the most recent four quarterly sample
    .results shall be reported to the Agency at the above address
    within 30.daysof receipt of the most recent quarterly sample.
    C.
    Pursuant to 35
    Iii. Adm. Code 611.851(b),
    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 that Petitioner has been granted a
    variance by the Pollution Control Board from 35 Ill. Adm. Code
    601.105(a)
    Standards of Issuance and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 602.106(a)
    Restricted Status,
    as it relates to the MCL standard in question.
    D.
    If results of analyses performed on samples pursuant to
    35 Ill.
    Adm. Code 611.685 show
    a violation of the MCL, then
    public notice shall be made pursuant to 35 Ill.
    Adm. Code
    611.851(b).
    E.
    Until
    full compliance is reached, Petitioner shall take
    all reasonable measures in complying with the sampling
    requirements for the contaminant in question.
    F.
    The Petitioner snail provide written progress reports
    to IEPA,
    DPWS, FOS every six months concerning steps taken to
    comply with paragraphs A,
    B,
    C,
    D, ~
    E.
    Progress reports shall
    quote each of said paragraphs and immediately below each
    paragraph state what steps have been taken to comply with each
    paragraph.
    G.
    Within 45 days after the date of this Opinion and Order
    Mt. Vernon shall execute and send to:
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    Stephen Ewart,
    Deputy Counsel
    Division of Water Pollution Control
    Compliance Assurance Section
    2200 Churchill Road,
    P.O. Box 19276
    Springfield,
    Illinois
    62794—9276
    a certificate of acceptance of this variance by which it agrees
    to be bound by the terms and conditions contained ‘herein.
    This
    variance will be void if the Petitioner fails to execute and
    forward the, certificate within the 45 day period.
    The 45 day
    period shall be in abeyance for any period during which the
    matter is appealed.
    The form of the certification shall be as
    follows:
    CERTIFICATION
    I,
    (We),
    ___________________,
    having read the Opinion
    and Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,
    in PCB 90-
    122—250
    5
    228, dated May 23,
    1991, understand and accept the said Opinion
    and Order,
    realizing that such acceptance renders all terms and
    conditions thereto binding and enforceable.
    Petitioner
    By:
    Authorized Agent
    Title
    Date
    Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act
    (Ill.
    Rev.
    Stat.
    1989,
    ch.
    111—1/2 par.
    1041) provides for appeal of final
    orders of the Board within 35 days.
    The Rules of the Supreme
    Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M.
    Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
    dopted on the
    ~
    day of
    /7’?
    &-~—~-
    ,
    1991 by a vote of
    -0.
    ,
    Clerk
    .ution Control Board
    Illinois
    122—25 1

    Back to top