ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 25, 1978

LITTLE SWAN LAKE SANITARY DISTRICT,

Petitioner,

V.

)

PCB 78-53

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Dumelle):

Petitioner

is seeking a variance from the drinking

water standard for fluoride contained in Rule 304(b) (4)

of

Chapter

6:

Public Water Supplies for its water supply in

Warren County near Avon.

The Agency has recommended that

a variance be granted until January

1,

1981.

No hearing

was held.

Petitioner

is constructing a water supply system which

will serve a present community of 300 people who live in

permanent homes and seasonal cabins on 100 lots surrounding

Little Swan Lake.

Since there are 580 lots,

a greater population

is anticipated.

The system will draw from two existing deep

wells containing raw water which averages slightly over 3.0 mg/l

fluoride.

Petitioner alleges hardship based on an estimate of

$140,000.00

to install fluoride removal equipment and an addi-

tional $24,000.00/year to operate this equipment.

This figure

has been translated into an additional $22/user/month which is

almost three times the present water rate.

This economic burden

is alleged to be unreasonable because negliqible public health

benefits would accrue.

Both parties agree that the fluoride level

in Petitioner’s system is safe.

Petitioner claims that if it

is

denied a variance,

its users will probably continue

to use indivi-

dual systems which are subject to contamination.

The Board was faced with a similar problem in a

recent case.

In Central Illinois Utility Company v. EPA,

PCB 77-349

(April 13,

1978), a variance from the fluoride

standard was granted to a small system with fluoride levels

below 3.0 mg/i.

The Board noted in its Opinion that no

defluoridation facilities were in use in Illinois and that

30

*

---

—2—

the Federal standard may be raised from 2.0 mg/l.

The Board

concluded that

it would be unreasonable to require a small

system to use “fledgling

technology”

when

its

fluoride

levels are not likely to cause any tooth mottling.

The levels present in this case are

in the range

(3-4 mg/i)

of what the Board considered the threshold for the observance

of tooth mottling when it adopted the present standard.

petitioner’s levels are significantly lower than the levels

suggested as the threshold in PCB 77-34 9 (8~14mg/i).

The Agency stated in paragraph

3 of its Recommendation that

the appropriate Board and Federal standard should be 8.0 mg/i.

It would appear then that no significant amount of tooth

discoloration will occur if Petitioner

is granted a variance.

The additional costs cited by Petitioner are difficult

to evaluate based on the record,

The capital cost associated

with fluoride removal is divided by

569,

the total number

of lots.

The operation and maintenance costs are divided

by 100,

the number of developed lots.

It is not clear why

this distinction has been made,

By Petitioner’s analysis

the cost per lot would decrease as the number of lots increases,

but the amount of the decrease is unclear.

The number 100

was probably used because it approximates the number of lots

that had been developed as of December

1, 1976

(97),

No

reason is given for Petitioner~s failure to supply more

recent data.

In spite of the deficiencies

in the cost data the

Board concludes that Petitioner would suffer an arbitrary

and unreasonable hardship if

it were forced to

install

a system which may not be necessary if the standard is

revised, may not be reliable on such a small scale, and

would not result

in any significant improvement in public

health.

TL should

ho noLod

LhaI:

the Bo;~rd Idol:;

I Io~

dU~

hor

i Lv

to ~r;~

ii

L

tell

of

I

torn

Lin:

1ede:ra 1

s

t

ancdrd

I @r

I LU() r

(10

which

became

effective

on

June

23,

1977.

however,

the

Board

is

mindful

of

the

Agency~s

efforts

to

obtain

primary

enforce-

ment responsibility 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 maximum variance period that can be

granted if Illinois is to be eligible for the administration

of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

This Opinion constitutes the Board~s findings of fact

and Conclusions of law in this matter,

Mr. Goodman abstains.

30

---

—3—

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 subject to the following

condition:

Within forty—five

(45)

days after the date of this

Order, 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 this variance.

This

45 day period shall be held in abeyance for any period

during which this matter is appealed.

The form of the

Certification shall be as follows:

CERTIFICATION

I (We), ________________________, having read and fully

understanding the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board in PCB 78-53 hereby accept the Order and agree to

be bound by all of its terms and conditions.

Signature

Title

Date

I, Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order

were adopte~on the

~

day of

_____________,

l973

by

a vote of 4_p

Christan L. Moffë

Clerk

Illinois Pollutio

ontrol Board

30