ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    April
    16,
    1981
    CITY OF CRYSTAL LAKE,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB
    81—i
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J. Anderson):
    This matter comes before the Board on the petition filed
    January
    2,
    1981,
    as amended February
    23,
    1981,
    for extension of
    the variance from the 1.0
    mg/i
    barium concentration
    limitation
    of Rule 304(B)(4)
    of Chapter
    6:
    Public Water Supplies which wa~
    granted in City of Crystal Lake v.
    ISPA,
    PCB 77—332,
    33 PCB 185
    (March 29,
    1979).
    On March 20, 1981 the Illinois Environmental
    Protection Agency (Agency) filed its Recommendation in support
    of the petition.
    Hearing was waived and none has been held.
    Consistent with the terms of the Board’s prior Order, by
    use of its existing synthetic resin type ion exchange treatment
    equipment the City of Crystal Lake
    (City), McHenry County, has
    been providing its population of approximately 8,300 persons
    with finished water containing 4.0 mg/i barium.
    As previously
    stated,
    the finished water from three of the City’s wells
    contains barium in excess of 1.0 mg/i, and two of these exceed
    4.0 mg/i
    (33 PCB 186).
    In exploring ~ompliance options as required by the original
    variance,
    the City has identified three methods by which the
    barium content of its water could be further reduced:
    further
    ion exchange treatment,
    construction of new shallow wells,
    or
    use of water from the Fox River.
    The City argues that each
    treatment technique will be expensive to finance,
    and difficult
    to implement.
    (The Agency notes that a possible fourth option,
    blending,
    “would be a difficult proposition as well,” given the
    nature of the City’s system.
    Rec.
    2.)
    The City states that reducing the barium below the
    4 mg/i by
    further ion—exchange treatment would produce an
    “aggressive
    and
    unstable” water requiring additional pumps,
    holding tanks and
    chemicals to stabilize.
    Annual operating costs would increase
    at least $100,000; water supply would be reduced by 224,000 gal-
    lons per day and an additional well would he required together
    with softeners, pumps,
    and other appurtenances.
    Moreover, the
    ion—exchange water treatment facilities cannot produce a consistent
    finished water quality of 1.0 mg/i barium using the waters of
    the
    City’s existing deep sandstone water supply wells.
    4 1—273

    2
    Alternatively, the City could discontinue using its three
    primary high capacity deep sandstone wells and construct ten
    new low capacity shallow limestone wells and additional treatment
    facilities.
    The estimated construction cost of this
    is $4,000,000
    and the increase in the City’s annual cost of operation, depreci-
    ation, and debt service is estimated to he approximately $615,000
    per year.
    The City’s other choice would be to discontinue using
    its
    three primary high capacity deep sandstone wells and pipe water
    from the Fox River.
    The estimated cost of construction for
    transmission lines,
    treatment plants and other appurtenances
    is
    estimated at $8,000,000.
    In addition to financial hardship, the City alleges that
    consumption of barium at these
    levels does not adversely affect
    the health of its water users
    (see 33 PCB 185—6) and notes
    that the federal barium standard has been the subject of contin-
    uing study.
    The Village therefore requests extension of variance
    until January
    1,
    1984,
    the deadline date for exemptions under
    Section 1416 of the Safe Drinking Water Act,
    42 U.S.C.
    §300(g)—5.
    The Board finds that to require immediate compliance would
    impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship,
    given the great
    expense of complying with
    a standard under review,
    and the
    existence of little,
    if any, threat to public health.
    Variance
    is accordingly granted until January
    1,
    1984 subject
    to the
    conditions outlined in the attached order.
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
    conclusions of law
    in this matter
    ORDER
    1.
    Petitioner, the City
    of Crystal Lake,
    is granted a
    variance from the 1.0 maximum barium concentration limit of
    Rule
    304
    of Chapter
    6:
    Public Water Supply until January
    1,
    1984,
    subject to the following conditions:
    A.
    Petitioner shall continue to investigate
    the compliance
    options
    it has identified, but shall also investigate
    the possi-
    bility of blending.
    B.
    Beginning on or about June
    1,
    1981,
    and at six month
    intervals thereafter, the Petitioner shall communicate with the
    Agency in order to ascertain whether new barium removal
    techniquc~.;
    applicable to its system have been developed and identified.
    C.
    As expeditiously after identification of a feasible
    compliance method as is practicable, but no later than January
    1,
    1983,
    Petitioner shall submit to the Agency a program
    (with
    increments of progress)
    for bringing its system into compliance
    with barium standards.
    41—274

    3
    D.
    Petitioner shall take all reasonable measures with
    its
    existing equipment to minimize the level of barium in its water
    supply and shall not allow the barium concentration to exceed
    4.0 mg/l.
    E.
    Pursuant to Rule 313(D)(1)
    of Chapter
    6, on or before
    June 30,
    1981 and every three months thereafter,
    Petitioner will
    send to each user of its public water supply a written notice to
    the effect that Petitioner has been granted by the Pollution
    Control Board a variance from the 1.0 mg/i maximum barium stand-
    ard.
    The notice shall state the average content of barium in
    samples taken since the last notice period during which samples
    were taken.
    2.
    Within forty—five days of the date of this Order,
    Petitioner shall execute and forward to David L. Rieser, Technical
    Advisor,
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement
    Programs,
    2200 Churchill Road, Springfield,
    Illinois
    62706,
    a
    Certificate of Acceptance and Agreement to be bound
    to all terms
    and conditions of this variance.
    This forty-five day period
    shall be held in abeyance for any period this matter is being
    appealed.
    The form of the certificate
    shall be as follows:
    CERTIFICATE
    I,
    (We), _______________________________,
    having read
    the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in PCB 81-1,
    dated __________________________, understand and accept the said
    Order, realizing that such acceptance renders all terms and
    conditions thereto binding and enforceable.
    Petitioner
    By:
    Authorized Agent
    Title
    Date
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order
    were adopted on the
    ~
    day of
    _____________,
    1981 by
    a vote of
    S—O
    .
    ~.
    ki-
    ~JL1
    Christan L. Moffetl~, Clerk~
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    41—275

    Back to top