ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 11, 1976
CITY OF OREGON, a municipal
corporation,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 75—497
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Young):
This matter comes before the Board on the Petition for
Variance filed on December 22, 1975, by the City of Oregon,
seeking relief from the chlorination requirements of Rule
305 of the Public Water Supply Rules and Regulations. An
Agency Recommendation was filed with the Board on February 9,
1976. No hearing was held in this matter.
Rule 305 requires that each public water supply, except
those purchasing water with an adequate chlorine residual,
chlorinate its water prior to its entrance into the distri-
bution system. This reiuirement became effective as of
December 21, 1975, and is directed toward protecting consumers
from the possible entrance of pathogenic organisms into the
supply system.
Accompanying the variance petition was a report prepared
by a consultant to the City entitled “Waterworks Improvement
Study” in which extensive and costly water system improvement
projects were suggested to the City. Because Oregon is in the
process of making a detailed review of this study, Oregon
requests that a variance be granted from the chlorination
requirements until December 21, 1977, to enable it to make some
alleged cost savings. At the present time Oregon has three
wells, although their consultant recommended that a fourth
well be drilled to enable Oregon to meet its anticipated needs.
The commencement date for drilling the fourth well is quite
uncertain at present. The consultant recommended that Well
#1 be abandoned or used only as a standby well after the fourth
well is in operation. Because of this anticipated change, it
is alleged that any costs expended to achieve compliance at
Well *1 would be wasted. Oregon estimates a total project cost
of $6,000.00 for a chlorination unit and housing to serve Well
~l. Since Well #1 may be abandoned or used only on a standby
20—281
—2—
basis, Oregon alleges two reasons this total $6,000.00 expendi-
ture would be improvident: First, money expended for building
construction would be a complete loss; second, money expended
for equipment at Well #1 would be a loss since that equipment
could not be used at Well *4 because of the different water
production rates of the two wells.
The Agency contends that this particular economic hardship
projected by Oregon is not accurate. If it were in fact necessary
to provide a building for the chlorination equipment at Well *1,
the Agency submits that a portable building could be used which
could be transferred to Well #4, when and if Well #1 is abandoned.
However, while visiting the site of Well #1, Agency field opera-
tions personnel found that a utility building exists containing
a pump which has been used in the past for the chemical feeding
of polyphosphate. With minor modifications the Agency believes
that this building could be used to house the chlorination equip-
ment and that the pump previously used to feed the polyphosphate
may now be acceptable for use in feeding liquid sodium hypochiorite.
In the eventuality that new equipment is necessary for chlorination
at Well #1, the Agency alleges that at least one manufacturer
markets a chlorinator with six different chlorination capacities.
Such a unit could be used at Well #1 until such time that Well
#4 was in operation.
In regards to the installation of chlorination facilities
at Wells #2 and 3, Oregon alleges that more favorable bids could
be obtained for such equipment if the bids were received when
taking bids for the drilling of Well #4 and the construction of
its related building. By doing this, Oregon could dictate that
all equipment be of the same manufacturer, thereby allegedly
providing for better operation because of the similar nature of
the equipment, and also reducing cost by avoiding unnecessary
duplication of repair parts.
The Agency is not convinced that Oregon would receive more
favorable bids for the installation of equipment at Wells #2 and
3 by delaying such installation until the drilling of Well #4.
Oregon has not offered any precise savings estimate which might
result from purchasing all equipment at the same time, and the
Agency believes that any such savings would be negligible and
offset by probable increases in the cost of the equipment in
the future. The Agency also submits that if similar equipment
is desired, Oregon could specify a particular brand of equipment
in setting its bids for the construction of Well *4. Whether
such equipment is needed for Wells #2 and 3 seems to be in doubt
however. While visiting these wells, Agency personnel discovered
that in addition to the pump at Well #1, two other chemical feed
pumps exist, one of which is idle while the other is presently
being used for feeding polyphosphate at Well #3. The Agency
20
282
—3—
believes that Oregon can use these pumps to feed sodium hypo—
chlorite at these wells.
This Board has in the past stated that the burden of proof
in variance matters is on the petitioner and that the evidence
to justify the allowance must be substantial and convincing.
Swords v. EPA, PCB 70-6, 1 PCB 5 (1970). We do not believe
that Oregon has established a hardship sufficient to justify
the grant of a two year variance; we will, however, grant a
variance for a period of 150 days to allow for the installation
of chlorination equipment at the existing facilities. Oregon
can determine whether it wishes to use the existing equipment
for feeding liquid sodium hypochiorite into the system, or
whether it wishes to purchase new equipment for use in the gas
chlorination of the system. The Board notes that the consultant
for Oregon recommended that gas chlorination be installed at
each of the existing wells and estimated the cost of compliance
using such equipment to be $24,900.00. Compliance costs using
existinq equipment would be considerably less initially, but
this initial advantage would be offset after a period of time
by the higher operating costs associated with the use of liquid
sodium hypochlorite.
The grant of this variance is conditioned on the fact that
Oregon file a project completion schedule and bi-monthly progress
reports with the Agency. In addition, a performance bond will
be required along with a standard certificate of acceptance.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
IT IS THE ORDER OF THE BOARI) that the City of Oregon be
granted a variance from the chlorination requirements of Rule
305 of the Public Water Supply Rules and Regulations for a period
of 150 days from the date of this Order subject to the following
conditions:
1. Oregon shall file a project completion schedule with
the Agency within 35 days of this Order and thereafter file
bi-nionthly progress reports with the Agency until completion
of the facilities.
2. Oregon shall post a performance bond with the Agency
in the amount of $24,900.00 in a form satisfactory to the Agency
to assure completion of the construction and installation of
its chlorination facilities. Such bond shall be posted within
30 days of the date of this Order at the following address:
Environmental Protection Agency
Public Water Supply Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
20— 283
—4—
3. Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Oregon
shall complete and submit to the Agency, at the above address,
the following certification:
I, (We), ________________________ having
read the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board in PCB 75-497, understand and accept said
Order, realizing that such acceptance renders
all terms and conditions thereto binding and
enforceable.
SIGNED
TITLE
DATE
Mr. Dumelle dissents.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, herejy certify the above pinion and Order were
adopted on the
//~
day of
fr)
,
1976
by a vote of
i/s.,
QA~~4~
Christan L. Moffe
,
lerk
Illinois Pollution ontrol Board