ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October 25, 1973
)
GALLATIN-WHITE WATER DISTRICT, INC.
)
)
)
V.
)
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