ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April
26,
1990
METRO UTILITY CO.
(Chickasaw
Hills division),
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 89—210
(Variance)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Respondent.
MR.
G. ALEXANDER McTAVISH, OF MYLER, RUDDY
&
McTAVISH, APPEARED
ON BEHALF
OF PETITIONER.
MS.
BOBELLA GLATZ
APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
R.
C.
Flemal):
This matter comes before
the Board upon the December
20,
1989 filing by Metro Utility
Co.
(“Metro”)
of
a Petition fo~
Variance (“Pet.”) on behalf of
its Chickasaw Hills division1.
Metro seeks variance from 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 602.105(a)
“Standards
For Issuance”
and 602.106(b)
“Restricted Status”
to the extent
those
rules relate
to violation by Metro’s
public water supply of
the 1.0 mg/l
total
iron standard of
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 604.202.
The variance
is
requested
for a period of three years
from the
date variance
is granted.
Metro has neither sought nor received
any prior variance relating
to public water
supplies prior
to the
instant action.
On February
13,
1990 the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(“Agency”)
filed
a Variance Recc:r~mendation (“Rec.”)
in
support
of grant of variance subject
to conditions.
The
conditions reccmmended by
the Agency are
in substantial
conformity with
the conditions acceded
to
by Metro
(See
Pet.
at
par.
37 and Rec.
at
par.
25).
Metro originally waived
its right
to hearing
(?et.
at
par.
48).
However, upon recei~t of several cojections
to grant
of
variance and recuests for hearir~c, the Board
on January
25,
:989
ordered
this matter
to hear in~pursuant to
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1987,
ch. 11l~, par.
1037(a).
Hearinc was held March
13 and 14,
1990
The Board
today enters
“Chickasaw
Hills
division”
into the
caption,
reflective
of
the limited applicability of
the
instant
matter
to
that division of Metro
Utility
Co.
I lr~—3(,~
—2—
in Lockport,
Illinois.
In addition
to the parties,
the hearing
was attended and testimony given by members of
the public.
Based on the record before
it,
the Board finds
that Metro
has presented adequate proof
that
irnniediate compliance with
the
Board regulations would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship.
Accordingly,
the variance will
be granted,
subject
to
conditions consistent
with this Opinion.
REGULATORY
FRA.ME~ORK
In
recognition
of
a
variety
of
possible
effects
occas~cned
by
elevated
levels
of
iron
in
drinking
water,
the
Board
has
promulgated reculations which,
among
other
matters,
restrict
the
concentration of
total
iron
in finished drinking water su~pies
to
1.0 mg/i.
This standard
is codified
at
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
604.202.
The action Metro requests here
is not variance from this
maximum allowable iron concentration.
Regardless
of the action
taken
by the Board
in the instant matter,
the iron standard will
remain applicable
to Metro.
Rather,
the action Metro requests
is
the temporary lifting of prohibitions
imposed pursuant
to
35
Ill.
Adrn.
Code 602.105 and 602.106.
In pertinent part these sections
read:
Section 602.105
Standards
for Issuance
a)
The
Agency
shall
not
arant
any
construction
or
operating
permit
required
by
this
Part
unless
the
applicant
submits
adequate
proof
that
the
public
water supply will
be constructed, modified or
operated so as
not
to cause
a violation of the
Environmental Protection Act (1l.
Rev.
Stat.
1981,
ch. lll~, pars.
1001
er
seq.)
(Act),
or
of
this Chapter.
Section 602.106
Restricted Status
b)
The Aaencv shall publish and make avaILable
to
the public,
at intervals
of not more than six
months,
a
comprehensive
and
up—to-date
List
of
supplies subject
to restrictive status and tne
reasons
why.
Illinois regulations
thus provide
that communities are
prohibited
from extending water service,
by virtue
of not being
able
to obtain the requisite ~ermits,
if their
water fais
to
meet. any of
the several standards
for finished water
supplies.
This provision
is
a feature
of Illinois regulations not
found
in
federal
law.
it
is this prohibition which Metro
requests be
I 10—370
lifted.
Moreover,
as Metro properly notes
(Pet.
at
par.
46),
grant
of
the requested variance would
not absolve Metro frdm
compliance with the iron st~ndard, nor insulate Metro from
possible enforcement action’ brought
for violation of
this
standard.
In consideration of any variance,
the Board determines
whether
a
petitioner
has
presented
adequate
proof
t~.at
immediate
compliance
with
the Board
regulations
at
issue would
impose an
arbitrary
or
unreasonable hardship
(ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1~987, oh.
lll~,
par.
1035(a)).
Furthermore,
the burden
is upon the
petitioner
to
show
that
its
claimed
hardship
out;.;eighs
the
public
interest
in
attaining
compliance
with
requlaticns
designed
to
protect
the public
(Willowbrook Motel
v.
Pollution Control Board
(1977),
135
Ill.App.3d,
481
N.E.2d,
1032).
Only with
such
showing
can
the
claimed
hardship
rise
to
the
level
of
arbitrary
or unreasonable hardship.
Lastly,
a variance by
its nature
is
a temporary reprieve
from
compliance
with
the
Board’s
regulations
(Monsanto
Co.
v.
IPCB
(1977),
67
Ill.
2d
276,
367
N.E.2d
684),
and
compliance
is
to
be
sought
regardless
of
the hardship which
the
task of
eventual
compliance
presents
an
individual
polluter
(Id.).
Accordingly,
a
variance
petitioner
is
required,
as
a
condition
to
grant of variance,
to
commit
to
a
plan
which
is
reasonably
calculated
to achieved compliance within the
term of
the
variance.
BACKGROUND
Metro
is
a
public
utility
which
provides
sewer
and
water
utility service
to a~~roximately4,000 customers
in northeast
Illinois.
Metro
has
19
employees
and operates from offices
located at
143 South Lincolnway,
North
Aurora,
Illinois.
Metro
Utility Co. was formed
in
1983
as
the
result
of the consolidation
of
seven
smaller
utility
companies,
the
larcest
of
these
being
Chickasaw
Hills
Utility
Company.
The
vestiges
of
the
seven
constituent utilites now remain as separate service
territories
or omerating divisions
of Metro.
It
is the Chickasaw Hills
division of Metro Utility Co.
wn:ch
has been piacec on res~rictec
status and which
is the subject of
the
instant
matter.
2 The Board
notes
that
the Agency
in
its reccimm.endatio:~and at
hearing
alludes
to
a
oending
enforcement
action
related
to
the
elevated
iron
concentrations
in
Metro
Utility’s
water
(Rec.
at
par.
10;
R.
at
9—10,
100).
That
pending
action
is
not
before
the
Board
in
the
instant
matter,
and
today’s
action
in
no
way
reflects
on
or
is
intended
to
reflect
on
the
merits
of
the
pending
action.
110—371
—4—
The original Chickasaw Hills Utility Company was
incorporated
in
1965
to provide sewer and water utility service
to the Chickasaw Hills Subdivision,
which
is located midway
between Lockport
and Orland
Park
in
Homer
Township,
Will
County,
Illinois.
Since
that
time
the
service
area
of
the
Chickasaw
Hills
division
has
expanded
to
include
other
areas
with
a
potential
of 3,568 customers
(Pet.
at
par.
9).
At this
time,
approximtely
2,430 customers are being
served,
2,368 of which are
single—family
residential
customers
and
62
of which are small
commercial
units
(Id.).
The water utility system
in question includes four
shallow
wells,
pumps,
an elevated tower,
and distribution
lines.
The
system
is divided to
a “North”
and a
“Scuth” area
(Pet.
Attachment
1),
which are connected by
a
12”
water
main
which
allows exchange between
the areas.
Three of the wells
(Wells
No.
1,
2,
and
4)
are located
in the North area;
one well
(Well No.
3)
is
located
in
the South area
(Pet.
at par.
11).
Metro contends
that
the raw water produced from the four wells differs
in
its
background concentration, with water
from Well
No.
1
being
below
the 1.0 mg/l
standard,
water
from Well
No.
2 being
at
or slightly
above the standard, and water from Wells No.
3 and
4 averaging
approximately 0.5 mg/l above
the standard
(Pet.
at pars.
12 and
17)
Metro provides various analyses
of
iron at points within the
distribution system
(See
Pet.
at
par.
22 and
24).
Typical of
distribution system iron analyses,
the reported concentrations
vary widely:
the
32 reported analyses range
from
.12
mg,’l
to
50.60 mg/l, with
a median of 0.8 mg/l.
As the Agency properly
points out, distribution system iron analyses are likely
to show
a great deal of variability due
to the chemical properties
off
iron
(Rec.
at
par.
11).
In particular,
iron tends
to precipitate
within
the pipes
of the distribution system as iron oxide or
hydroxide, and may thereafter
be flushed
through
a water tap to
produce an occasional
very high analysis
at the
tap.
In
fact,
it
is standard practice
in systems where
raw
water
is high
in iron
to periodically
flush accumulated
iron
ou.t of
the water mains,
and thus
to reduce thepossibility
of large
“slugs”
of
iron being
delivered at
a customer’s
tap.
Metro contends
that prior
to 1988
it
had been able
to
chemically
secuester
the
iron
in its water
supply,
and that
it
thereby had been operating
in compliance with the iron standard
(Pet.
at par.
16).
Metro contends further, however,
that
due
to
growth
in the number of customers served and higher individual
water demands,
its
former sequestering program
is
no longer
adequate
(Pet.
at
par.
18).
Nevertheless, Metro contends that
it was not aware
of
the
failure of
its sequestering program, and its resultant
failure to
be
in compliance with
the iron standard, until
notified
to this
110-372
effect in
a letter from the Agency dated August
24,
1989
(Pet.
at
par.
26).
In the same letter
(Pet. Attachment
8),
the Agency
first notified Metro of placement on restricted status.
COMPLIANCE PROGRAN
Metro has taken various steps
to date
to
reduce the
occurrences of elevated iron concentrations
in
its distribution
system.
These include acceleration of
its program
to flush water
mains
(Pet.
at
oar.
19).
Additionally, Metro
has installed an
integrated well control system so that daily average consumption
is being supplied by ~ells
No.
1 and
2
(Id.),
the two wells with
the lowest background
iron concentrations.
Metro points
to
reduced consumer
complaints
as one measure of efficacy of these
measures
(Id.).
Metro now proposes three additional actions.
These are
(Pet.
at par.
27;
R.
at
28—35):
1)
Drilling of
a second well adjacent
to Well
No.
1
to
increase
the production of water with an iron
concentration
off
less than
1.0 mg/l.
Metro estimates
that
the new well will be operational during the summer
of 1990
at
a cost of approximately $116,000
(R.
at
33—
4).
A construction permit
for
this activity was issued
by
the Agency on September
21,
1989
(See Pet. Attachment
11).
2)
Construction of
treatment facilities in order
to provide
iron treatment
to all water supplied by Well
No.
3.
The
facilities are intended to include
a
fine filter
unit,
pressure
tank,
housing,
and controls.
Metro
estimates
that
the facilities will
be operational around June
1,
1990
(R.
at
33)
and cost
$194,000.
A construction
permit
for this activity was issued by
the Agency on
September
1,
1989
(See
Pet. Attachment
12).
3)
Construction of
treatment facilities
at Well
No.
4,
similar
to
that
of Well
No.
3,
above.
Metro estimates
an implementation
time
off
36 months and a cost
of
$237,600.
The Agency believes that
this ccm~liance program,
as well
the compliance
schedule,
is acceotable
(?ec.
at
put.
5).
The
Agency further believes
that
the compliance
orogra:t,
implemented prooe:lv,
can achieve
corr.oliance with
the Board’s
iron standard
(Id.;
R.
at
102).
The Bourd concurs with the
Agency’s analysis.
110—373
—6—
HARDSHIP
Metro notes
that
it intends
to come
into compliance with the
iron standard as soon as
is practicable, and
is currently engaged
in implementing
a compliance program
(see following).
However,
Metro believes that remaining
on restricted status during the
interval during which compliance steps are being undertaken would
constitute
an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.
Metro and the
Agency both note
that because of Metro’s inability
to receive
permits
for water main extensions,
any economic growth dependent
on those water
main extensions
is not allowed.
Metro adds
that
a
principal hardship would
fall u~:nothers
(Pet.
at
par.
41):
Failure
to obtain
a variance means
that all
construction
within
Petitioner’s
service
area
requiring extension of the water system could
not
resume.
This hurts prosoective home purchasers
as
well
as business developers
...
Moreover,
Petitioner
had,
previous
to
its
beir’.a placed
on the Restricted
Status List, entered
into numerous contracts with
developers
of property
for the extension of
its sewer
and water mains.
Most,
if not all,
of these
developers have expended substantial
sums
of money on
planning, approvals,
construction,
and marketing
of
their
developments under
the assumption
that
Petitioner would provide central
sewer
and water
service.
If
a variance
is not granted,
these
developers stand
to suffer serious economic losses
in
terms of both time and money,
as
a result
of
Petitioner’s
inability
to serve.
Letters
filed with
the Board by persons who have economic
interest
in land and home developments
in the Metro
service area
support
the conteqtion
that hardship would
fall on persons
in
addition
to Metro~.
Developments
for which water main extension
is foreseen include
(Pet.
at
par.
14):
1)
Saddle Brooke Subdivision located immediately west
of
the existing Pebble Creek Subdivision
in Homer Townshio,
Wtll County,
I1lino~s,ccns~st~ncor
83 stnc~e fam~lv
residences
.;ith an expected pcoulation
of
330 persons.
Each house would
na~.’e a separate noouo
to the proposed
water
main.
Letters are from:
John C.
LaFlamboy
of Caldwood Development
Corporation,
filed February
28,
1990;
John Ryan of Ryan
&
Smith
Incorporated,
filed March
2,
1990;
Jeanette
M.
Funchion of
F.I.D.C.,
Inc.,
filed March
~,
1993;
~ichael
J.
Cap of Joseph
A.
Schudt
& Associates,
filed March
7,
1990;
and Ronald
J.
Patterson
of PatConServ,
Inc.,
filed March 26,1990.
110—374
2)
County Woods
Subdivision located immediately north of
the existing Twin Lakes Subdivision
in Homer Township,
Will County,
Illinois,
consisting of
84 single family
residences with an expected population
of
330 persons.
Each house would have
a separate hookup to the proposed
water main.
3)
Hillside Meadow Subdivision located immediately west of
the existing Meadowview Subdivision
in Homer Township,
Will County,
Illinois,
consisting
of
19 single
family
residences with an expected population
of
70 persons.
Each house would have a separate hookuo to the proposed
water main.
4)
Hillside Court Subdivision located immediately west of
the existing
Meado’,.’view Subdivision
in Homer Township,
Will County,
Illinois,
consisting
of
28 single family
residences with an expected population
of
110 persons.
Each house
would have a separate hookup to
the proposed
water
main.
5)
Cedar
Road Grade
School, Homer School District
33C,
on
Cedar
Road,
south of
159th
Street,
in Homer Township,
Will
County,
Illinois,
housing approximately 660
students and staff.
Metro notes
that each of
the four subdivisions above
mentioned has been approved pending
the issuance of permits by
the Agency, and that substantial
initial development and
marketing have taken place
(Pet.
at
pars.
14,
42).
Metro further
notes
that
the permit
for extension
to the Saddle Brooke
Subdivision has been denied by
the Agency by
letter of October
16,
1989
(Pet.
Attachment 9),
based
on Metro’s restricted
status.
Metro
next
notes
that
it
must come
into compliance with the
iron standard irrespective of
the Board’s action
in
the instant
matter.
Metro also adds
that
if
it
is denied variance, and hence
cannot add additional customers during
the time period required
to come into compliance,
the burden
of paying
for the required
additional
treatment facilities will
fall
upon
fewer
customers
resulting
in higher
individual
rates
than would otherwise
be
necessary
if
the variance were granted
(Pet.
at
par.
39).
Lastly, Metro contends
that
the hardship resulting from
denial of
the requested variance would cutweich
the
injury
off
the
public
(see below),
particularly given
the limited
time period of
the requested variance and the intermediate compliance steps
which are
to be undertaken
(Pet.
at par.
38—43).
Metro thus
believes that
the hardship rises
to the level
of arbitrary
or
unreasonable hardship
(Id.
at
par.
43).
The Agency agrees
that
denial
of variance would constitute
an arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship
(Rec.
at par.
18 and
19).
I 10—375
—8—
PUBLIC INJURY
Although Metro has not undertaken
a
formal assessment
of
the
environmental effect of
its requested variance,
it
contends that
extension of
its waterrnains will
not cause any significant harm
to the environment or
to the people served
by the potential
watermain extensions
for the limited time period of
the requested
variance
(Pet.
at
par.
33).
As regards the elevated iron
concentrations,
Mr. Harold
A.
Ritke, witness for Metro contends:
It
is
not
a health hazard.
But,
it does mess up the
laundry and
it
isn’t pleasant
to draw
it into the
bath
tub.
Most
importantly,
it
turns
the water
black.
(R.
at
35).
Mr. Martin
Ince,
appearing on behalf
of the Will County Land
Use Department,
which otherwise opposes grant
off variance, also
concedes
“that high
iron concentrations
in the water
do not pose
a health hazard”
(R.
at
47).
However, Mr.
Ince notes
that “there
are
a number of other undesirable effects, discoloration,
taste
and odor”
(Id.).
The Agency also contends
that iron
in the concentrations
typical
of
that
found
in Metro’s
system does not constitute
a
significant health risk
(Rec.
at par.
15).
The Agency
additionally notes that the principal concerns are related
to
problems
of color and taste
(Rec.
at par.
14).
In conclusion,
the Agency states:
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
off the public from grant
of
that variance.
In
light
of
the cost
to
the Petitioner
of
treatment of
its
current water
supply,
the likelihood
of
no
significant
injury
to
the public from continuation of
the present
level of
the contaminants
in question
in
the Petitioner’s water
for
the limited
time period of
the
variance,
and
the
possibility
of
compliance
with
the
iron standard,
the Agency concludes
that denial
of
a variance from the effects of Restricted Status
would impose
an arbitrary
or unreasonable hardship
upon Petitioner.
The Agency observes
that
this 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
110—376
—
--
so saying,
the Agency emphasizes
that
it continues
to
place
a high priority on compliance with the
standards.
(Rec.
at par.
23 and
23).
CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL LAW
The Agency believes
that Metro may be granted variance
consistent with
the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(42 U.S.C.
~300(f))
and corresponding
regulations because the
requested
relief
is not variance from
a national primary drinking
water
regulation
(Rec.
at par.
21).
CONCLUSIONS
The Board concludes
that,
in
light
of all the facts
and
circumstances of this case,
denial of variance would impose an
arbitrary
or unreasonable hardship upon Petitioner.
The Board
also agrees with
the parties
that no significant health risk will
be incurred by persons who are served
by any new water main
extensions,
given
the reasonable assurance that compliance
is
forthcoming via Metro’s compliance program.
The Board notes
that significant attention has focused on
the 50.60 mg/l
iron concentration determined on a sample
collected on July
6,
1989
from 13041
W.
Woodlawn.
The Board
itself had,
by Order
of January
11,
1990,
requested
that the
Agency address
the nature of
this result.
The 50.60 mg/l
is not
only more
than 50—times
the standard,
but
it
is also almost 17—
times
larger than any
off the other
31 sampling results
in
the
record before
the Board.
Whereas Metro seemingly questions the
validity of
the result,
to the extent
that
it points out that
both
its own lab and an outside
lab have
not found similar
results
(Pet.
at par.
24),
the Agency defends
the
result
as
real
and as consistent
the chemical properties
off
iron
(Rec.
at
par.
11).
The Agency notes,
however,
that given
the inherent
variability of
iron concentrations,
one would
nor
expect a
similar
result
if
the test were taken at another
time,
even at
the same
location (d.).
Moreover,
the Agency
notes
that
it
“would not expect any health implications from
the 50.60
m.g/l
iron content
due simply
to the
fact
that
once
the water has beer
run
for
a while,
this
level would
not
he
likely to be oresent”,
and tnat
samoies
taken
at
other
times and locatrons
“oe:nonstrate
that
the
50.60
mg/I
level
is
not reguiariy present
in Metro’s
finished water”
(Id.).
The Board generally concurs with
the Agency’s perspective on
the health aspects
of
the
50.60 mg/l
result.
Aside
from the
absence
of known health effects
from occasional consumption of
I 10-377
—10—
such water,
the Board notes
that water containing
iron
at
this
concentration
is highly colored, and therefore
is unlikely
to
be
routinely consumed.
However,
such water
can cause substantial
discoloration of fixtures and clothing.
In
the latter
case,
it
is
not reasonable
to expect
a person to monitor
the color
of
water entering appliances,
such as washing machines,
as
a defense
against discoloration and
ruin
off clothing.
Thus,
concentrations
of this sort,
even
if only very occasionally encountered,
are not
to be tolerated.
Lastly,
the Board
notes
that
the instant
matter
is unusual
among variance actions before the Board
in that
it has elicted
a
far
larger public participation than
is
normal.
In
part,
this
public participation reflects concern about
the economic
consequences of denial
of variance.
In part,
it also reflects
a
significant public displeasure with Metro’s general
service.
Public displeasure with Metro’s general service
is borne out
in
various consumer complaints
filed with Metro,
the Agency, and/or
various
units
of
local and state government
(e.g.,
R.
at
8-9,
26,
42—43,
50,
57,
66,
68—71,
118,
134,
137—149, 154;
Rec.
at par.
10),
as well as
the objections
to variance filed with the
Board.
The Agency has also conducted
a survey
of Metro customers
(R.
at
73—4;
Pub.
Exh.
2);
the survey produced 538 responses,
408
of which indicated
that Metro’s water was “unacceptable”
(Rec.
at
par.
10).
The level
of public displeasure
is
further evidenced
by the level of public participation at hearing and comments
elicited there.
The Board initially notes
that
it
is difficult
to separate
out those portions
of
the expressed public concern which are
germane
to the
instant matter from those which are not germane.
Most of
the complaints,
in fact,
appear
to be
related
to matters
such as
insufficent water pressure and discoloration.
These
matters are not germane
to today’s action,
in that Metro does not
request relief,
nor does
the Board grant
relief,
from any
standards related
to water pressure
or chemicalor
physical
parameters.
Moreover, Metro has been made clearly aware by the
actions
of the Agency
that
the problems of pressure and chemical
and physical parameter~must
be corrected.
The Board accepts
Metro’s compliance program as an acceptable method of correction,
and intends
to bind Metro to
the compliance procram as
a
condition
for
grant of the
instant variance.
Among other matters which are not germane
to today’s action
are alleged right—of-way disputes between Metro and the Homer
Township highway commission
(R.
at 80—83) and Metro’s alleged
implacement of
“substandard” fire hydrants
(R.
at
86—91,
125—128;
Pub.
Exh.
5).
These matters are not only not~germane, they are
not within the Board’s
jurisdiction.
Few of
the expressed public concerns appear
to be directly
related
to
the only
issue at
hand,
which
is whether Metro should
I 10—378
now be allowed
to extend
its water service
to additional
customers.
Among comments which urge grant of variance are those
which are based on
financial loss
if water service cannot be
supplied;
the Board believes
that these comments are
important,
and gives them corresponding weight.
Among comments which urge
denial,
the Board perceives
that
there are some which would deny
the
instant variance as penalty
for implied past failures on
Metro’s part.
The Board
is
not persuaded
that denial
of variance
could be based on Metro’s history.
The record does
not support
that Metro’s
hardship,
yet alone
the hardship
of Metro’s intended
new customers,
is self—imposed.
Moreover,
Metro has,
since
notification of
its restricted status,
aggressively sought
compliance.
The Environmental Protection Act
rather narrowly
prescribes
the standards under which
this Board must either grant
or deny any requested variance.
These are the standards of
hardship and commitment
to compliance noted earlier
in
this
Opinion.
Based on the record developed
in
this matter,
the Board
is constrained
to
find
that Metro has met all
of the standards
for grant
of variance.
Variance must therefore be granted with
conditions consistent with
this Opinion.
This Opinion constitutes
the Board’s findings
off
fact
and
conclusions of law in
this matter.
ORDER
Petitioner,
Metro Utility
Co.
(Chickasaw Hills division)
is
hereby granted variance from
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 602.105(a),
Standards of
Issuance, and 602.106(b), Restricted
Status,
but
only as
they relate
to the 1.0 mg/l iron standard of
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 604.302,
subjec.t
to the following conditions:
(A)
Compliance shall
be achieved with
the iron standard
off
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 604.202
no later
than
three years
from
grant of
this variance.
(B)
In consultation with
the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
(“Agency”),
Petitioner
shall continue
its sampling program to determine
as accurately as
possible
the level
of
iron
in its wells and finished
water.
Until
this variance terminates, Petitioner
shall
collect quarterly samples
of
its water from
its
distribution system and shall have
then analyzed
annually by
a laboratory certified by the State
of
Illinois for
iron analysis
so as
to determine
the
concentration of
iron.
The results of the analyses
shall
be reported
to:
110—370
—12—
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Compliance Assurance Section
Division of Public Water Supplies
P.O.
Box 19276
2200 Churchill
Road
Springfield,
Illinois 62794—9276
(C)
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
shall 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
it
relates
to
the iron
concentration standard.
(D)
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 shall send to each user of
its public water supply
a written notice to
the effect
that Petitioner
is
not
in compliance
with the iron
concentration standard.
The notice shall state
the
concentration of iron
in samples taken since
the last
notice period during which samples were taken.
(E)
Petitioner
shall
take all reasonable measures with
its
existing equipment
to minimize the level of
iron
in its
finished drinking water during the period of
this
variance.
These measures shall
include
a
regular
flushing program approved by
the Agency.
(F)
No
later
than
12 months
from this grant of
variance,
Petitioner
shall
complete construction of
a
second well
adjacent
to Well No.
1
to increase the production
of
water
with
an iron concentration of less than 1.0 mg/l
(G)
No
later
than
sixteen
months
from
this
grant
off
variance,
Petitioner
shall complete construction
off
facilities
to treat
for iron all water
supplied
by Well
No.
3.
(H)
Petitioner
shall aoply
for permits
for construction
of
iron removal equipment
at Well No.
4
by August
1,
1991,
and shall begin construction of said
iron removal
equipment
by April
1,
1992.
Petitioner
shall complete
construction of
treatment facilities
to treat
all water
suoplied by Well
No.
4
by
a date three years
from
this
grant
of variance.
110—330
—
1
•~J—
(I)
Petitioher shall provide written progress reports
to the
Agency at
the address below every six months cbncerning
steps
taken
to comply with this Order.
Progress reports
shall quote
each of
the paragraphs and immediately below
each paragraph state what
steps
have been taken
to
comply with each paragraph.
Illinois Environmental Protection Aget~cy
Division of Public Water Supplies
Field Operations
Section
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois 62708
Within
45 days
of the date of
this Order, Petitioner
shall
execute ~nd
forward
to Bobella Glatz,
Enforcement Programs,
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill
Road,
Post Office Box 19276,
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 89—210,
April
26,
1990.
Petitioner
Authorized
Agent
Title
L
e
Section
41 of
the Environmental Protection Act,
Ill.
Re’;.
Stat.
1987 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.
110—381
—14—
Board Members Jacob
D.
Dumelle, Bill Forcade, and Michael
Nardulli dissented.
I,
Dorothy
M.
Gunn, Clerk
of
the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify that
the abov~Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
~
day of
(1~y-;~’
~‘
,
1990,
by
a
vote of
~/ -3
.
/
L
//;.
;~
~
Dorothy
M.
9iinn,
Clerk
Illinois P~1ution Control Board
110—382
