ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 22, 1986
VILLAGE OF LAKE ZURICH,
Petitioner,
)
PCB 86—41
v.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
MR. ALBERT L. WYSOCKI AND MR. JOSEPH SIKES APPEARED FOR THE
PETITIONER; and
MR. WAYNE L. WIEMERSLAGE APPEARED FOR RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Theodore Meyer):
This matter comes before the Board on the March 18, 1986
petition for variance of the Village of Lake Zurich from
restricted status for a period of five years. The Village
requests variance from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 602.105(a), Standards of
Issuance, and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 602.106(b), Restricted Status,
but only to the extent that those rules relate to 35 Iii. Adm.
Code 604.301(a), combined radiwn—226 and radium_228.* On April
22, 1986, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
filed a recommendation that variance be granted subject to
certain conditions. Petitioner waived hearing but as objections
were timely received by the Board, hearing was held on May 9,
1986 in Lake Zurich.
The Village provides potable water to a population of 3200
residential and 200 industrial and commercial utility customers
representing some 10,000 residents and businesses employing
approximately 4,000 people estimated as of the year of 1986. The
Village owns, operates and maintains the public water supply and
storage distribution system which includes 3 deep wells, 4
storage pumps and distribution facilities. The wells, their
depths and ages are as follows:
*Although the variance petition additionally requested relief
from the effects of restricted status as to gross alpha particle
activity, this request was stricken at hearing. R. at 134.
—2—
Well No.
Depth (ft.)
Date placed in
qperation
5
1,340
1963
7
1,333
1971
8
1,373
1979
The Village was first notified by letter dated October 4,
1985 that the maximum allowable concentration (MAC) for combined
radium—226 and 228 was exceeded. The Agency analysis indicated a
radium—226 count of 3.8 pCi and a radium—228 count of 1.9 pCi for
a combined radium level of 5.7 pCi/ This level exceeds the 5
pCi/l standard. The analysis was of an annual composite of four
consecutive quarterly samples or the average of the analyses of
four samples obtained at quarterly intervals. The sampling took
place over four quarters between November 1979 and January 12,
1981. Thus, there was a four year interval between the sampling
and the reporting of the results to Lake Zurich. The Agency has
no more current analyses of the radium level because analyses
performed for gross alpha particle activity indicated that
sampling for radium was not necessary.
The Village has conducted more recent sampling, however,
which showed combined radium levels in its three wells of 5.4,
4.9 and 4.8 pCi/l. (Rec. at 1). The Agency notes that these
levels demonstrate at least “temporary compliance.” However,
demonstration of compliance requires an average or composite of
this and of three more quarterly samples. Should such compliance
be demonstrated, variance will no longer be needed. However, in
the interim, the Village would remain on restricted status
without a variance.
The Village has twice before found itself in a similar
situation regarding the gross alpha and barium standards. A
petition from variance from the gross alpha standard was granted
by the Board on November 19, 1981. This variance required
submittal of a compliance plan by January 1, 1983. However, the
Agency informed the Village by letter dated September 27, 1982
that its supply was no longer exceeding the gross alpha level
Similarly, the Village petitioned on June 1, 1981 for a variance
from the barium standard but after a June 1981 test showed
compliance, the Village asked for dismissal of this petition
which the Board granted.
Thus, as regards the radium standard, the Village appears to
argue that analyses over the remaining three quarters will more
than likely demonstrate compliance and that to require extensive
expenditures in the interim would impose an arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship. The Board notes that the Village’s
argument is buttressed by the fact that since the 1980 tests the
Village has been consistently in compliance with the gross alpha
standard. Compliance with the gross alpha standard is generally
indicative of compliance with the combined radium standard.
—3—
Should further analyses demonstrate that the Village is not
in compliance with the radium standard, however, the Village
envisions three alternatives to resolve the problem: 1)
constructing shallow wells for blending; 2) constructing
treatment facilities; and 3) utilizing Lake Michigan water.
The Village estimates construction costs for implementing a
blending program at $700,000 per site for a total of $2.8
million. However, the yield capabilities of the shallow aquifers
are still under investigation. Also uncertain is the quality of
the water available from these deposits. The Village states that
it did have had wells in the shallow Silurian Dolomite aquifer
which were taken out of service primarily due to poor water
quality. The water had very high hardness, sulfate and total
dissolved solids concentrations and was produced in low
quantities.
Regarding treatment facilities, the petitioner estimates
construction costs at 2.4 million at each deep well site. Lime
or lime—soda softening can remove 80—90 percent of the radium.
However, the Agency states that this method produces large
quantities of radium causing additional problems and expenses in
proper waste disposal. Ion exchange water softening will remove
90 percent of the radium, but regeneration of the softener with
salt will increase the sodium content of the water. Increased
sodium levels may create a significant risk to persons who are
hypertensive or who have heart problems. In addition, waste from
routine softening is high in total dissolved solids and may be
very difficult to dispose of legally. The ion exchange process
also concentrates the radioacitivy releasing it in the waste
stream in a concentrated form which may be more of a hazard at
that point than in the drinking water. In addition, some
radioactivity remains in the ion exchange material posing a
hazard to anyone working on the softener and disposal of the
radioactive ion exchange material may be a problem. Thus, the
Agency actively discourages use of the ion exchange process for
radionuclide removal.
Concerning the possible use of Lake Michigan water, the
Village states that it currently has no allotment for Lake
Michigan water. It estimates construction costs for utilizing
lake water, were it to become available, at approximately $8.5
million. Currently residential consumers pay approximately
$l.70/l,000 gal. for water. The total cost after the
improvements to utilize lake water would be in the area of
$7.35/l,000 gal. (Pet. at par. 24).
The Village states that the time involved for the planning,
financing, engineering and construction of water treatment
facilities prevents immediate compliance with the radium
standard. In the interim, the Village states that there is a
great need for expansion of the water supply. By way of example,
—4—
the Village provided the testimony of Peter Bianchini, a vice
president of Lexington Development Corporation, a builder—
developer in Lake Zurich. Mr. Bianchini testified that Lake
Development currently has sold 84 residential units which it is
unable to hook up to water service. These units represent
approximately $11 million in construction and sales to Lexington
Development.
Since these units have been sold, Mr. Bianchini stated that
restricted status has also created problems for the 84 families
which are unable to take up occupancy. He further stated that
future development by Lexington Development will come to a halt
if restricted status is not lifted resulting in a loss of
approximately 200 jobs in the construction trades. (R. at 15).
Bianchini testified that his company is just one of a number of
developments within the Village (Id.). Similar concerns were
expressed in a written communication to the Board received from
the Dimucci Construction Company supporting the grant of the
variance.
As the Agency points out, according to the April 1986
analysis performed by Teledyne Isotopes, the Village is at least
temporarily in compliance. Gross alpha particle activity since
1980 also gives a preliminary indication that the Village may be
in compliance. To require the Village to remain on restricted
status while further testing goes on would impose an arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship. (Rec. at 7). The Village also points out
that grant of the requested variance would not make less strict
the radium content that it must meet but would simply mean that
the Agency could not legally deny construction or operating
permits for water main extensions As previously mentioned, the
Village has committed to come into compliance should testing
demonstrate non—compliance.
The health effects of ingesting radium at these levels was
extensively discussed at the hearing by Dr. Richard E. Toohey of
the Argonne National Laboratory. Dr. Toohey noted that the limit
for radium was set by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) based on calculations which, assuming consumption
of two liters of water per day containing 5 pCi/l, would result
in an excess lifetime cancer risk of 100 per million. Dr. Toohey
stated that the normal lifetime cancer risk is 200,000 per
million. Dr. Toohey contends, however, that USEPA’s risk
estimate exaggerates the radium hazard. His conclusions are
based on studies of radium dial painters. The lowest dose of
radium, according to his studies, which caused cancer was nine
microCuries. One microCurie is equal to one million
picoCuries. This occurred in a 7 year old boy who was injected
with radium for medical treatment. He further observed that no
health effects were observed in the children of the dial
painters.
—5—
Thus, Dr. Toohey takes issue with the USEPA’s model for
predicting the health effects of radium
—
the linear no threshold
model. The linear no threshold model assumes the health effects
of radium at low levels of intake are exactly proportional to
what they are at high levels of intake. Dr. Toohey contends that
the linear no threshold model is inaccurate because while it
predicts five excess cancers below ten microCuries intake, the
data actually show zero cancer incidents below nine microCuries
intake.
Dr. Toohey also points out that to receive nine microCuries
of radium (i.e. nine million picoCuries) would require drinking
Lake Zurich water for about twelve thousand or more years. (R.
at 94).
Dr. Toohey further testified that even if one assumes that
the linear no threshold model is correct, it still grossly
overestimates the actual public health impact. He stated that
the calculation on which the model is based is wrong by a factor
of two. Moreover, the assumed water intake of two liters per day
should be corrected to one liter per day according to
Dr. Toohey. This conclusion is based on studies which have shown
the average intake of tap water, as opposed to total fluid
consumption, is much closer to one liter per day than two. (R.
at 97). Hence, Dr. Toohey concludes that the standard could be
raised from 5 pCi/l to 20 pCi/l, or by a factor of four, and
still remain at the same lifetime risk estimate of one hundred
excess cancers per million. Thus, Dr. Toohey concluded that
there was minimal health risk at the radium levels present in
Lake Zurich’s water.
While the Citizens of Lake Zurich are understandably
concerned about health risks, the Board believes that the risks
involved at these levels are minimal. Furthermore, variance will
not mean that the Village need not comply with the 5 pCi/l
standard but only that the Village will no longer be on
restricted status. Thus, the Board finds that to require the
Village to remain on restricted status would impose an arbitrary
or unreasonable hardship given the minimal health risks, the
possibility that the Village may well be able to demonstrate
compliance within the year and the substantial economic hardship
which will result if variance is not granted. Moreover, should
compliance not be demonstrated, the Village has committed to
achieve compliance by expiration of the variance and has
committed to secure professional assistance and identify a
compliance option in the interim so as to be able to act
expeditiously in that event. Accordingly, the Village of Lake
Zurich’s petition for variance from restricted status is granted,
subject to conditions.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
—6—
ORDER
The Village of Lake Zurich is hereby granted a variance from
35 Ill. Adin. Code 602.105(a), Standards of Issuance, and
602.106(b), Restricted Status, but only as they relate to
combined radium 226 and 228, subject to the following conditions:
1. That this variance expires when analysis pursuant to 35
Ill. Mm. Code 605.105(a) shows compliance with the MAC
in question or on May 1, 1991, whichever comes first.
2. In consultation with the Agency, Petitioner shall
continue its sampling program to determine as accurately
as possible the level of radioactivity in its well and
finished water. Testing for radium 226 and 228 shall be
continued. Compliance with the following timetable
shall continue until, and unless, analysis pursuant to
paragraph Number one of this order shows that compliance
with the MAC, thus rendering further treatment
unnecessary.
3. Within three months of the grant of the variance, the
Petitioner shall secure professional assistance (either
from present staff or an outside consultant) in
investigating compliance options, including the
possibility and feasibility of achieving compliance by
blending water from its shallow well(s) with that of its
deep well(s).
4. Within four months of the grant of the variance,
evidence that such professional assistance has been
secured shall be submitted to the Agency’s Division of
Public Water Supplies, FOS, at 2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois 62706.
5. Within nine months of the grant of the variance, the
Petitioner shall complete investigating compliance
methods, including those treatment techniques described
in the Manual of Treatment Techniques for Meeting the
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations, USEPA, May
1977, EPA—600/8—77—005, and prepare a detailed
Compliance Report showing how compliance shall be
achieved with the shortest practicable time, but no
later than five years from the date of this variance.
6. This Compliance Report shall be submitted within ten
months of the grant of this variance to IEPA, DPWS.
7. Within three months of its submission, or within any
written extension of approval time made by IEPA, then
within three months after said time Petitioner shall
—7—
apply to IEPA, DPWS, Permit Section, for all permits
necessary for construction of installations, changes or
additions to the Petitioner’s public water supply needed
for achieving compliance with the maximum allowable
concentration for the standard in question.
8. Within three months after each construction permit is
issued by IEPA, DPWS, Petitioner shall advertise for
bids from contractors to do the necessary work described
in the construction permit and shall accept appropriate
bids within a reasonable time.
9. Construction allowed on said construction permits shall
begin within a reasonable time of bids being accepted,
but in any case, construction of all installations,
changes or additions necessary to achieve compliance
with the maximum allowable concentration in question
shall begin no later than three years from the grant of
this variance and shall be completed no later than four
and one half years from the grant of this variance.
10. Compliance shall be achieved with the maximum allowable
concentration in question no later than May 1, 1991.
11. Pursuant to 35 Ill. Mm. Code 606.201, in its first set
of water bills or within three months after the date of
this Variance Order, whichever occurs first, 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 35 Ill. Adm. Code
602.105(a) Standards of Issuance and 35 Ill. Adm. Code
602.106(b) Restricted Status, as it relates to the MAC
standard in question.
12. Pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 606.201, in its first set
of water bills or within three months after the date of
this Order, whichever occurs first, and every three
months thereafter, Petitioner will send to each user of
its public water supply a written notice to the effect
that Petitioner is not in compliance with the standard
in question. The notice shall state the average content
of the contaminant in question in samples taken since
the last notice period during which samples were taken.
13. That Petitioner shall take all reasonable measures with
its existing equipment to minimize the level of
contaminant in question in its finished water.
14. That within forty—five days of the date of this Order,
Petitioner shall execute and forward to Wayne
Wiemersiage, Enforcement Programs, Illinois
—8—
Environmental Protection Agency, 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 certification shall be as
follows:
CERTIFICATION
I, (We),
hereby accept and agree to be bound by all terms and conditions
of the Order of the Pollution Control Board in PCB 86—41, May 22,
1986.
Petitioner
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
IT IS SO ORDERED.
J. D. Dumelle and B. Forcade dissented.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
~
day of
__________________,
1986, by a vote
of ~
.
/
/
Dorothy M. c~ünn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board