ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
October 19,
1978
VILLAGE OF RIO,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
PCB
78—218
)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr.
Satchell):
The Village of Rio filed a petition for variance from
Rule 304(B) (4)
of the Chapter 6:
Public Water Supply
Regulations
(Chapter
6) on August 14,
1978.
The request
is that variance be granted from the fluoride standard of
2.0 mg/i in finished water until January
1,
1981.
The
Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
filed a favorable
recommendation on September 18, 1978.
The Village of Rio
is in northwestern I~no~
County, Illinois
The present population is approximately 300 persons, while the
number of water connections is 109.
The existing water
facilities consist of
a 675 feet deep well,
a 20,000 gallon
wooden elevated storage tank with an aerator located in the
top, and a small building housing chlorination equipment,
electrical controls, and valves.
The original facilities
were constructed in 1958 with chlorination equipment added in
1974.
The existing well provides a sufficient quantity of water
except during mechanical failures.
To alleviate this problem
a new well is proposed to provide a duplicate source of water.
The existing wooden elevated tank leaks continually and becomes
contaminated.
The tower does not have adequate volume to sustain
a fire flow very long and the low tower height causes the water
pressure in some parts of the distribution system to be less
than adequate.
Because of the inadequacies it
is proposed to
construct a new elevated water storage tank of sufficient volume
and height.
The present village well
is 675 feet deep and taps creviced
dolomite and limestone formations of Devonian and Silurian ages.
The Illinois State Water Survey
(Survey)
has indicated that
chances are good for developing an additional supply of similar
quality from a well similar to the present well.
The Survey
31—695
—2—
further indicates that chances are the desired quantity of water
can be obtained from deeper formations; however, the quality of
water would be poorer than that presently obtained.
Thus the
determination was made to drill the well to the same depth as
the current well.
Laboratory analyses done by the Survey and the Agency indicate
that the raw water from the existing well has
a natural fluoride
content of from 2.0-2.4 mg/i.
The finished water quality contains
a fluoride content approximately the same as the raw water.
Thus
it is anticipated that the proposed well will have a natural
fluoride content of slightly more than 2.0 mg/i.
The Village has investigated a number of treatment alternatives
including:
adsorption processes, reverse osmosis, electrodialysis
and alternate ground or surface water supplies.
There
is no
alternative groundwater supply with a lower fluoride content and
no surface supply with proven quality.
The other alternatives
are not economically feasible.
The most cost effective solution
was the adsorption process with total installation costs of
$128,000.
In addition to the installation cost, the fluoride
removal system will impose additional operating costs of $24,000
per year.
This amounts
to $320 per user per year or $28 per month.
This
is in addition to the
$8 user cost without fluoride removal.
Petitioner and the Agency agree the fluoride removal equipment is
c~tiy, ~ifficult to operate and control, and may be unreliable.
The Village purports and the Agency agrees that at the fluoride
levels present in the Village’s water supply no adverse health
effects are expected and may be beneficial in reducing tooth decay
and hardening bone structure.
The Agency further states that the
aesthetic effects of enamel mottling will be nonexistent or at
most exceedingly minor and are not sufficient to justify the high
costs of fluoride removal.
The current fluoride standard was recommended by the Agency
because that is the level established by the Federal government as
a maximum contaminant level under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
If
the State does not maintain at least as stringent a water supply
program as the Federal government,
the State will not be eligible
for primary enforcement authority of the Federal program.
The
Agency and the Illinois Department of Public Health believe the
maximum allowable concentration of fluoride in finished water
should be at least four times
(4 mg/i)
the optimum level.
The
Agency is hopeful that TJSEPA will revise upward its present
fluoride standard in promulgating its Revised Primary Drinking
Water Regulations.
Accordingly the Agency does not believe the
3i—~96
—3—
level
of
fluoride
in
Petitioner’s
finished
water
will
be
detrixhental
to
its
users.
The
Agency
recommended
that
a
variance
be
granted.
The
Board
finds
that
Petitioner
would
suffer
an
arbitrary
and
un~easonablehardship if required to install fluoride
removal
equipment
at
this
time.
The
Board
has
noted
before
that the technology involved has not reached an advanced state,
Central Illinois Utility Company v. Environmental Protection
Agency, PCB 77-349, April 13,
1978.
Clearly the heavy financial
burden on 109 water users for unproven equipment that may prove
unnecessary
in a few years
is not required.
The Board will
grant a variance from the fluoride requirements of Rule
304(B) (4)
of Chapter
6 until January
1,
1981.
Since there are no con-
ditions imposed with this variance, no certificate of acceptance
is required.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that the
Village of Rio is granted a variance from the fluoride limit-
ation in Rule 304(B) (4) of the Chapter
6:
Public Water Supply
Regulations until January
1,
1981.
I, Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby cert4.fy the above Op’non and Order
were adopted on the
/qi~
day of
_____________,
1978
by a vote of J~”-~
ristan L.
Mo
e
er
Illinois Pollutio
ntrol Board
31—697