ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April
13,
1978
CENTRAL ILLINOIS UTILITY COMPANY,
Petitioner,
V.
)
PCB
77—349
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
MR. DANIEL J.
KUCERA, OF CHAPMAN AND CUTLER appeared on
behalf of Petitioner.
MR. REED NEUMAN AND MR. GEORGE W.
TINKHAM, ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL, appeared on behalf of Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Dumelle):
Petitioner
is seeking a Variance from the drinking
water standard for fluoride for its water supply in Knox
County near Dahind.a.
The Agency has recommended that a
Variance be granted until January 1,
1981.
A hearing
was
held at the Knox County Courthouse
in Gaiesburg on February
28,
1978.
Petitioner’s water supply system provides service
to
approximately 114 users
in the Oak Run Development
(Oak Run)
which
is a recreational subdivision constructed around a
man-made lake.
Oak Run is projected to contain 2500 lots
and is expected to grow at the rate of
25 houses per year.
Only
50
of the present homes are full—time residences and
most of these are occupied by retirees.
The present level
of fluoride
in both the raw and finished water
is 2.5 mg,/1.
The
flO1)r(1
aHJ
TTh(1f’ra
I
;Land~i
rd~;ir~~
~)r(’:;yt)(
ly
2
.()
tmj/l
PetiLioner
alleqes
hardship based on an estimaLe
of
$129,150.00
for~~
of fluoride removal
facilit:ies
and additional annual operational expenses of $30,500.00.
The net result of such expenses would be
a need for additional
annual revenue
of $60,210.00.
In order to meet these needs,
the present user rate of $5.00/month would have to be raised
to approximately $49.00/month.
This economic burden is
alleged to be unreasonable because negligible public health
benefits would accrue.
Both parties agree that the appropriate
safe level
for fluoride concentration in Petitioner’s
water
supply should be 4.0 mg/i and that there would be no detectable
impact on the Oak Run users’
dental hygiene at the present
level
of 2.5 mg/i.
30—32
—2—
When the Board adopted its present fluoride standard
it
noted
that the technology for fluoride removal existed
but that
it
was not in general use.
Consequently
a delayed
compliance
date of January
1,
1978 was adopted to give
affected communities enough time to evaluate alternatives
for compliance.
Petitioner has evaluated its alternatives
and has determined that installation of
an absorption
process
using
bone
char
media
constitutes
the
only
means
available
to
its system.
The Agency
stated that it
was
not aware of any defluoridation facilities
in Illinois and
that
a
Class
A operator,
the most qualified type, would
be needed to run such a system.
In the Board’s Opinion which constituted the rationale
for adopting Chapter
6,
a level of 3—4 mg/l was cited as
the threshold for the observance of fluorosis
(tooth mottling).
Dr. William Babeaux, the Chief of Dental Health with the
Illinois Department of Public Health,
stated
in the record
of this case that discoloration of teeth was observed at
the 8—14 mg/i level and that no discernible ill effects
would be observed at the recorded levels
in Petitioner’s
system.
The Board
is generally reluctant to grant any Variance
which does not provide
for ultimate compliance with relevant
standards.
In matters involving public health, this reluctance
is doubly important.
The record in this proceeding,
however,
justifies a diversion from the Board’s position.
While the projected growth of Oak Run would result
in a decrease in the individual user cost
for defluoridation,
a second well will have to be installed
in
Lhe
future and
the costs of fluoride removal will undoubtedly be greater
due
to inflation.
A small system such as Petitioner’s
is
simply not appropriate for the demonstration of what is still
fledgling
technology.
Tn
this
instance
the
Board
is
impressed
by
the
leadership being taken by the Agency and
Ithe Department
of
Public
Health
in
their
joint
effort
to
have
the
Federal
standard
revised
upward.
The
fluoride
levels
here
authorized
are slightly over the present standard and below the lowest
levels at which tooth mottling occur.
No deleterious effects
on tooth appearance should occur.
It should be noted that the Board
lacks the authority
to grant relief from the
Federal
standard
which
became
effective
on
June
23,
1977.
However,
the Board
is mindful
of the Agency’s efforts to obtain primary enforcement re-
sponsibility under the Safe Drinking Water Act and understands
the need to maintain as stringent a program as that encompassed
by the Federal Act.
Consequently, the January
1,
1981 date
will be honored in this Variance since
it represents the
extent of Federal authority.
30—33
—3—
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
Petitioner
be granted
a Variance from the drinking water
standard for fluoride
in Rule 304(b(4)
of Chapter
6:
Public
Water Supplies until January
1,
1981 subjc~ctto the
following condition:
Within 45 days after the date of this Board Order herein,
the Petitioner shall execute and forward to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency,
Division of Public Water
Supply,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
a Certification of Acceptance and Agreement to be bound to
all terms and conditions of the variance.
This 45 day
period shall
be held
in abeyance for any period during which
this matter is appealed.
The form of said Certification shall
be as follows:
CERTIFICATION
I
(We),
______________________
havinq read and fully
understanding
the
Order
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
in
PCB
77-349
hereby
accept
said
Ord’r
and
agree
to
be
bound
by
all
terms
and
conditions
t!~nreof.
Signature
~I,i I
I
~.‘
Date
I,
Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board,
hereby certify the above Opinion and Order
were adopted on the
/3 ~
day
of
____________,
1978
by a vote
__________
~&~ta~
L~~~k&
Illinois Pollutio
ontrol Board
30.-3L~