ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    March 29, 1979
    CITY OF CRYSTAL LAKE,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 77—332
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    SUPPLEMENTARY OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Dumelle):
    On February 16, 1978 the Board denied Petitioner a variance
    from the standard for barium in Rule 304 B 4 of Chapter 6:
    Public Water Supplies. On April 13, 1978 the Board reopened
    the record in this matter. On February 1, 1979 the Board
    granted Petitioner’s motion to reconsider the prior denial of a
    variance and agreed to reevaluate the prior decision. The
    Agency has recommended that a variance be granted subject to
    conditions.
    Petitioner has submitted sections of a draft USEPA document
    on guidance for the issuance of variances and exemptions from
    the maximum contaminant levels in the National Interim Primary
    Drinking Water Regulations. Since Illinois has not received
    primary enforcement responsibility under the Safe Drinking
    Water Act, the Board lacks authority to grant variances from
    the Federal standards. Consequently, the Federal guidance can
    only be viewed as the latest views of USEPA although it is
    valuable in that respect.
    The guidance document states that a level of 2 mg/i barium
    in drinking water should be safe for adults and that a level of
    1.0 mg/i (which is also the Illinois standard) should provide
    an adequate margin of safety. The U.S.S.R. has established a
    standard of 4 mg/i.
    The guidance document discusses the preliminary results of
    an epidemioiogical study which has since been published and
    received by the Board. The study is entitled Health
    Effects of Human Exposure To Barium in Drinking Water
    (EPA-600/1-79—003). The study presents the results of
    comparisons of human mortality and morbidity rates in Illinois
    communities whose drinking water exceeded or met the barium
    standard. The study found significantly higher death rates
    from “all cardiovascular diseases” and “heart disease” when
    barium exceeded 2.0 mg/i in finished water. The study advises
    caution in making any inferences from this conclusion. The
    study also found some significant differences in systolic blood
    pressure levels but these results were deemed inconclusive because
    of inconsistencies in the data. The study found no significant
    differences in the prevalence of hypertension, heart disease,
    33—185
    —2—
    stroke, or kidney disease. In addition no significant
    differences in these conditions could be attributed to relative
    levels of sodium concentrations. Consequently, home water
    softeners (which raise sodium levels) were found to have no
    association with cardiovascular disease. This conclusion is
    important because water softeners remove barium from drinking
    water. Since the use of home water softeners cannot be
    controlled, any conclusions on relative incidences of
    hypertension, heart disease, stroke, or kidney disease must be
    viewed with caution.
    The guidance document recommends exemptions (similar to
    Illinois variances) for communities
    “. . .
    whose drinking water
    has barium concentrations up to 4 mg/i providing no adverse
    health effects attributaLle to the drinking water are
    discernible.” The guidance document goes on to state: “The level
    of 4 mg/i in drinking water was calculated from the data
    suggesting that adsorption of barium from the gastrointestinal
    tract in children is approximately 25 of ingested amounts.
    Therefore a 10 kg child drinking 1 liter of water containing 4
    mg/l barium would adsorb only 1 rng of barium.”
    The finished water from three of Petitioner’s wells (Nos. 6,
    7 & 8) contains barium in excess of 1.0 mg/l and two of these
    exceed 4.0
    mg/i
    although
    none
    exceeds 5.0 mg/i. Petitioner has
    agreed to operate and maintain its system so that no finished
    water would exceed 4.0 mg/i.
    Petitioner claims that denial of a variance would cause
    hardship for two reasons. First, Petitioner has no excess
    capacity or alternative water source to replace these wells.
    Second, Petitioner has no excess funds to install additional
    barium removal equipment. Petitioner is asking for relief until
    January, 1981 so that it can re—evaluate costs, methods, and
    treatment to meet the standard.
    Petitioner has attached an affidavit executed by Dr. Frank
    Fiorese, a toxicologist. Dr. Fiorese has concluded that the
    barium found in wells 6, 7 & 8 occurs in the form of barium
    sulfate. As such, he concludes, it will not diffuse through the
    gastrointestinal wall, will not reach the blood stream, and is
    not toxic.
    The Agency supports a variance in this instance because
    Petitioner’s existing zeolite softening equipment can reduce
    barium down to the 4 mg/i limit. Although USEPA may consider
    changing the Federal barium standard or the date for compliance,
    the Agency does not believe that Petitioner should rely on this
    contingency. Consequently, the Agency recommends that Petitioner
    devise a compliance plan within 6 months to meet the present
    standard.
    Denial of a variance would constitute arbitrary or
    unreasonable hardship on Petitioner. Petitioner has the ability
    33—186
    —3—
    to treat its water to a level which has been recommended as safe
    on an interim basis. The Board will not require Petitioner to
    conduct a survey of blood pressure levels among its high risk
    residents as recommended in the guidance document. A survey of
    this nature would involve considerable expense and would he of
    dubious value in light of the inconsistent results obtained in
    the USEPA health effects study.
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s finding of fact and
    conclusions of law in this matter.
    ORDER
    It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that
    Petitioner be granted a variance from the maximum concentration
    limit for barium in Rule 304 B 4 of Chapter 6: Public Water
    Supplies until January 1, 1981 subject to the following
    conditions:
    1) Petitioner shall maintain a level of 4.0 mg/i barium
    in its finished water.
    2) Within six months of the date of this Order, Petitioner
    shall develop a program which will result in compliance
    with the present barium standard (1.0 mg/l) and shall
    submit the program to the Agency for approval. If the
    program, as approved, provides for the installation of
    new equipment or the development of additional raw
    water sources, Petitioner shall obtain the necessary
    Agency permits and submit quarterly progress reports to
    the Agency.
    3) Within 45 days of the date of this Order, Petitioner
    shall execute a Certification of Acceptance and
    Agreement to be bound to the terms and conditions of
    this variance. This 45 day period shall be held in
    abeyance if this matter is appealed. The Certification
    shall be forwarded to the Illinois Environmental
    Protection Agency, Division of Public Water Supplies,
    2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706 and
    shall read as follows:
    CERTIFICATION
    I (We),
    ,
    having read
    and fully understanding the Order in PCB 77—332, hereby accept
    that Order and agree to be bound by all of its terms and
    conditions.
    SIGNED
    TITLE
    DATE
    33—18 7
    —4
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order
    were adoPted on ~
    c~aof~lerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    33—188

    Back to top