ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 25, 1973

)

GALLATIN-WHITE WATER DISTRICT, INC.   

)

PCB 72-448

)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY    

)

JOSEPH R. HALE, SHAWNEETOWN, ILLINOIS, appeared for the Gallatin-

White Water District

THOMAS J. IMMEL, Assistant Attorney General, appeared for the

Environmental Protection Agency

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Drnne lie):

A petition for variance was filed on November 16~1972 by

Gallatin-White iATater District. On December 18, 1972, the Agency

filed a recommendation to deny the variance request. A hearing was

held on January 11, 1973. The Board ordered on June 21, 1973, that

Petitioner submit the hearing transcript within 21 days or have its

variance petition denied. The transcript was received on July 2, 1973,

approximately six months after the hearing date. The 90-day period

was waived indefinitely by the petitioner,

Petitioner is a rural water district :located in Ridgeway

Township, Gallatin County, Illinois. Petitioner seeks relief from

an Agency denial of a permit to construct and operate a 125 GPM

water treatment plant and distribution system to serve approximately

250 rural water users. Water from an 82 foot shallow well is to be

treated by iron removal, zeolite softening, fluoridation and chlorination

Softening is proposed because the raw ground water contains 340 mg/i

total hardness. Petitioner desires to use water from a second well

to dilute the zeolite brine waste from 11,000 mg/i to 3500 mg/i of

total dissolved solids (TDS). The Agency objected to this dilution

as a violation of Chapter 3, Section 401(a) of the Board’s Rules

and Regulations (Water Pollution Rules) which states that dilution

is not an acceptable method of treating wastes. The Agency also

stated that the diluted brine discharge violated Section 408 of the

Water Pollution Rules in that Petitioner’s discharge would raise the

TDS level above the allowed increase of 750 mg/i over the naturally

occurring level of 374 mg/i TDS.

-2-

Petitioner’s shallow well is overlain with sand. The diluted

brine waste was first proposed to be discharged 100 feet from the

well. This was later increased to 500 feet. An Agency engineer

testified that the cone of influence would extend from a minimum

of 750 feet to a maximum of 1700 feet from the well shaft

(R. 74, 1/11/73). Thus, Petitioner would pollute its own well by

discharging the brine waste into a dry water course within the cone of

influence (R. 81, 1/11/73). Such a discharge would tend to recycle

dissolved solids and would raise the TDS level above the 500 mg/i

TDS allowable limit for public water supply found in Water Pollution

Rule 204(b).

Petitioner states that it does not care what type of treatment

system it uses; it only desires to have a supply of soft water

at a cost per user that will allow the Federal Farm Home Administra-

tion (Fl-IA) to issue the $250,000 grant and $296,800 loan (R. 113,

1/11/73). Mr. Charles Schuman, State Director of the FHA, stated

that the FHA has no preference as to the type of water treatment

employed (R. 16, 1/11/73). He testified that if the cost exceeded

$1200 per individual user, the FHA takes a very careful look at the

water system’s ability to repay the loan (R. 13, 1/11/73). Petitioner’s

cost has already slightly exceeded the $1200 limit (R. 16, 1/11/73).

Mr. Glen Clarida, Petitioner’s Engineer, testified that he

recommended zeolite softening primarily on the basis of cost (R. 19,

1/11/73), He ruled out lime softening because, according to the cost

estimates he received it was $33,000 more than the zeolite softening

system (R. 24, 1/11/73). This difference is based upon a cost for

the lime softening equipment of $45,000 (R. 33, 1/11/73).

Mr. Ira Markwood, Manager of Public Water Supply Section, EPA,

testified they had obtained recent cost figures of $27,207 and

$24,265 for packaged lime softening systems to produce the same

quality water as the proposed zeolite softeners (R. 96, 98, 1/11/73).

He further testified that the two systems would cost approximately

the same with lime softening possibly little less expensive (R. 100,

1/11/73).

The Board finds that Petitioner has not met the burden of proving

an unreasonable hardship to warrant the granting of what would

amount to an open ended variance to violate Water Pollution Rules

401(a) and 408. Dilution is not a proper method of treating

a waste  when there are other alternatives present. The Record

shows that the brine waste could be pumped beyond the cone of

influence, so as to avoid contaminating Petitioner’s own well and

that of the downstream irrigation wells. Agency testimony raises

a serious doubt as to $33,000 cost for the lime softening system.

Petitioner’s estimate is based upon an initial cost of $45,000;

while the Agency’s figures are $24,000 and $27,000 for apparently

the same equipment. The cost savings should be more than enough

to construct a lagoon and the building modifications (R. 59, 1/11/73).

-3-

While the Board normally doesn’t determine what type of system

to employ, it is presently asked to approve a system which would

result in violations of the Water Pollution Rules when there apparently

exists another system that for the same cost, does not result in such

violations. The Board must deny such a request.

The

Board in denying this variance is not disputing the

people’s need for a safe, sanitary water supply; it is only asking

that the Petitioner re-examine its cost estimates in light of the

testimony presented by the Agency.

The record indicates that

FHA

funds 

have been restricted

(R. 15, 1/11/73).

It should be noted that

Petitioner has caused a substantial delay by not furnishing a copy

of the hearing record 

until after the start of the current fiscal

year. Only after a Board order, did Petitioner submit the record

transcrlpt.

The above Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

concliusions of law.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board that

petition for variance is hereby denied without prejudice.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted on the

~~‘~day of October, 1973 by a vote of  ~

- _).

/

;

Christan L. Motfe~t, ~ierk

Illino:i,s Pollution Control Board

9—617