ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August 14, 1986
LAKE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
)
WILDWOOD SUBDIVISION WATER
)
SUPPLY SYSTEM,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 86—75
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
AGENCY,
Respondent.
JOHN DAVID KOENEN, ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTORNEY, APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF PETITIONER; and
PETER ORLINSKY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Anderson):
This matter comes before the Board on a May 23, 1986
petition for variance filed by the Lake County Department of
Public Works (County). The County seeks variance for one of 15
water supplies, that supply which serves the Wildwood subdivision
(Wildwood). The County requests a five—year variance from 35
Ill. Adxn. Code 602.105(a) “Standards for Issuance” and from 35
Ill. Adm. Code 602.106(b) “Restricted Status”, to the extent
these rules relate to the 5
pCi/i
standard for combined radium—
226 and radium—228 contained in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 604.301(a). On
July 1,
1986 the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) filed a Recommendation in support of variance, subject
to conditions. Hearing was ordered by the Board and held on July
17,
1986, at which the County presented testimony by Martin A.
Galantha, superintendant
of
the County’s Department of Public
Works. About 10 citizens attended and a few asked questions and
indicated support of grant of variance.
The Wildwood Subdivision is located in an unincorporated
area of Lake County which more or less surrounds Gages Lake, and
is roughly bound by Route
120 on the south, Hunt Club Road on the
east, Wash’ington Street on the north, and Route
45
on the west.
The Wildwood public water supply
serves
the needs of the area’s
8,000 residents, as well as those of commercial, industrial and
other users, including the College of Lake County and the Area
Vocational School.
72-39
—2—
The average daily pumpage for the water system is
approximately 626,400 gallons per day (gpd). Five wells
currently supply these water needs; two are deep wells
constructed in 1951 and 1970 (Well 2 and Well 4) and three are
shallow wells constructed in 1959, 1986 and 1986 (Well 3, Well 5
and Well 6). An additional deep well, Well 7 has recently been
put in operation.
Variance had previously been granted to the County in Lake
County Department of Public Works v. IEPA, PCB 82—29, November
12, 1982. That variance related to exceedance not of theradium
standard, which is the subject of this petition, but of the gross
alpha particle activity standard. A one year variance was
granted, subject to conditions, to allow the continued operation
of the only wells then operational, deep wells 2 and 4 and
shallow well 3. Subsequent testing (four consecutive quarters)
showed that the system was in compliance with the gross alpha
particle activity standard during the life of that variance.
However, by letter of October 4, 1985, the County was
notified by the Agency that a composite sample (composite of
what, the Agency did not specify) indicated that the water supply
was in violation of the 5.0 pCi/i combined radium standard, as
sampling results indicated radium—226 levels of 5.5 pCi/l and
radium—228 levels of less than 1.0 pCi/1.*
Immediately thereafter, the County caused water samples to
be collected from each well for independent analysis. The
sampling results, in addition to other pertinent information
about each well, are reflected in Table 1:
Average Ra—226
Ra—228
Depth pumpage Level
Level
Well in feet in gpd in pCi/i
in pCi/l
Other
2
1845 135,300 6.5±0.1 5.2±1.2
not currently in service
3
173
68,000 1.2±0.1 less than 0.8(sic)
4
1320 324,100 0.1±0.1 3.1±0.9
5
152
50,000 0.1±0.1 less than 0.8(sic)
6
158
50,000 0.1±0.1 less than 0.8(sic)
7 **(deep well)
**
**
**
**
No comparative data was provided for Well 7. Testimony stated
that Well 7 “slightly exceeds the standard”, and that over 70 of the
average daily demand of 626,600 gallons is supplied by deep wells,
currently primarily Wells 4 and 7 (see R. 12,13,19). The water is
distributed through a “random network of piping” with some wells
pumping directly to the distribution system (R. 13).
*
This record indicates that gross alpha testing in Wildwood’s
water system was discontinued subsequent to the earlier showing
of compliance (R. 29).
72-40
—3—
As a result of Wildwood’s excursion of the 5.0 combined
radium standard, the water supply system has been placed on
restricted status. This prohibits the Agency from issuing
permits for water main extensions for the following proposed and
pending developmental projects within Wildwood: a) Woodland
Hills
—
a development of townhomnes, consisting of 180 units of
attached single family residences, b) Woodland Meadows
—
120
units of detached single family residences, c) Mariner’s Cove
—
110 units of detached single family residences, d) County Squire
Village
—
250 units of multi—family apartments in conjunction
with commercial development, e) Dooley/Towne Development
—
140
units of townhomes, f) Tomessen Development
—
110 units of
townhomes.
The County has investigated various compliance options,
including a) treatment of its water by either the lime softening
method, the reverse osmosis method, or the ion—exchange softening
method, b) blending, and
C)
use of its Lake Michigan
allocation. As to the various treatment methods, the County has
provided no capital or operation and maintenance costs, but
asserts that these methods are undesirable because of expense
(particularly because the nature of the system is such that
treatment facilities’ would be required to be placed at more than
one well rather than at a central location), and because these
methods produce a radioactive sludge, disposal of which is
difficult and costly.
The blending option has also been rejected by the County.
This option was the subject of considerable analysis by the
Agency in its Recommendation; it is the Agency’s opinion that
blending is not a practicable solution. The County has not
provided, either in the petition or at hearing, a concise and
detailed description of its distribution system, which handicaps
the Board’s understanding of this situation. However, Wells 5
and 6 are located at one site, Wells 3 and 7 and a elevated water
tank are located at another site geographically distant from
Wells 5 and 6, and Wells 2 and 4 are located at two separate
sites located between the other two sites. Some wells
(unspecified) pump directly into the distribution system, and
others pump into the elevated water tank (R. 13). The level of
water in the tank is contingent on the demand of the system; as
the pressure in the distribution system drops the level of water
in the tank drops, causing the pump(s) to turn on automatically
to restore the water level in the tank and hence the water
pressure in the system (Rec., p. 6—7).
The Agency does not believe that blending of Wells 5, 6 and
7 in the tank is feasible, “because the total pumpage capacity of
these three wells is not adequate to meet system demands, and
the elevated tank should not be taken out of service because this
volume of water 120,000 gallons should always be available so
72-41
—4—
as to maintain distribution system pressures and for emergencies
such as fire protection”. (Rec. p. 8)
The Agency states that it would also be possible to blend
Wells 3 and 7 through existing tanks at the elevated tank site,
while allowing Wells 4,5 and 6 to pump directly into the
distribution system. While this alternative could provide
sufficient water to meet Wildwood’s current average and peak
demands, the Agency stated that it had insufficient information
to assess whether this method would provide sufficient water to
satisfy the peak hourly demand once all of the 910 units of
proposed development is hooked on to the system (Rec. p. 8).
The County’s preferred compliance option is utilization of
the Lake Michigan water allocation granted to it in 1981.
Pursuant to this allocation, in 1982, the County entered into an
agreement with Gurnee, Graysiake, Libertyville, Lake Bluff,
Vernon Hills and Mundelein (which has since withdrawn)
establishing the Central Lake County Water Supply Committee
(Committee). Since that time, the Committee, to which the County
has contributed approximately $20,000, has retained various
consultants to investigate various engineering and funding
options associated with utilization of each entity’s Lake
Michigan allocation. The County has provided no estimate as to
when the Committee, or any entity formed as a result of the
Committee’s activities, might actually be delivering finished
water. (The Board notes that the November, 1986 start—up date
projected in the County’s petition in PCB 82—29 is clearly
incapable of being met.) The County also states that,
independent of Committee activities, the County, Gurnee, Wildwood
and Grayslake have begun discussions with Waukegan and the public
water district in Zion concerning the possibilities of
purchasing water on a short—term basis, but no details
concerning these discussions have been provided (R. 30).
The County asserts that denial of variance would impose an
arbitrary or unreasonable hardship. The County believes that
grant of variance will not be harmful to the residents of
Wildwood. While no formal assessment of health effects was
presented by the County in the petition or at hearing, the County
relies upon and incorporates testimony presented by Richard E.
Toohey, Ph.D and James Stebbings, Ph.D, both of the Argonne
National Laboratory, in the R85—l4 regulatory proceeding, as well
as a statement of the Agency’s Dorothy L. Bennett, attached to
the petition as Exhibit 5.
By contrast, the County believes that denial of variance
would have a large and adverse effect on the Wildwood area. In
addition to any other economic effects of the halting of new
development, the County asserts that as an “enterprise funder
utility”, it is dependent on user fees for funds to maintain and
upgrade its system. As capital costs to deliver Lake Michigan
72-42
—5—
water (or to achieve compliance in some other fashion) can be
extreme, the larger the base of consumer rate—payers is, the
smaller the financial impact will be on each rate—payer.
The Agency does not dispute the County’s various
assertions. The Agency recommends grant of variance for five
years, subject to conditions.
Given Wildwood’s minimal excursion from the standard, its
participation in Committee activities, and its economic
assertions, the Board finds that denial of a short—term variance
would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship. The Board
also notes that Well 2, which appears to be the primary cause of
the noncompliance, has been out of service for several months
and, when operating, was the last one used in sequence since the
radium problem was discovered.
However, the Board does not believe that this record
supports the grant of a full five year variance. The information
presented by the County is sketchy or vague in many respects.
The County did not provide information at hearing, in response to
the Agency’s Recommendation, to allow assessment of the
possibility of blending waters from Well 7 at the elevated tank
site and directly pumping from Wells 4,5 and 6 to the system, or
whether peak hourly demand could be met; as earlier noted, there
is no hard data presented concerning Well 7, or details
concerning the distribution system. No projections have been
made concerning when compliance might be achieved by using
blending, the Lake Michigan allocation, buying from other
communities, or any other option, and hard cost figures are non-
existent.
Under these circumstances, the Board believes that only a
one—year variance is justified, which will allow the County to
gather necessary information and to rationally assess interim as
well as long—term compliance options, particularly in light of
the “slippage” of the Committee’s timetable as reportedin the
1982 variance petition. Meanwhile, this record does indicate
that methods, possibly unsuitable for the long—term, can be used
in the short—term to achieve compliance, or close to it, during
the period in which longer term methods are selected and
implemented. Specifically, the Board will condition this
variance on the continued non—use, or restricted use, of Well 2
and the blending/direct pumpage use of Wells 3,4,5,6 and 7, if
feasible, as described in the Agency’s Recommendation (Agency
Rec. 21), consistent with peak hourly demand needs.
Variance is accordingly granted for one year subject to the
conditions outlined below.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
72-43
—6—
ORDER
1)
Petitioner is granted a variance from 35 Ill. Adm. Code
602.105(a) Standards of
Issuance, and 602.106(b) (Restricted
Status) but onl~’as they relate to the combined radium—226 and
radium—228, subject to the following conditions:
2. This variance expires, August 15, 1987, or when analysis
pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 605.105(a) shows compliance with
the combined radium standard, whichever first occurs.
3. In consultation with the Agency, Petitioner shall
continue its sampling program to determine as accurately as
possible the level of radioactivity in each of its deep wells and
finished water.
a) During the term of this variance, Petitioner shall
collect four quarterly samples of its water from its distttbution
system, shall composite and shall analyze them by a laboratory
certified by the State of Illinois for radiological analysis so
as to determine the concentration of radium in its water. The
results of the analyses shall be reported to the Water Quality
Unit, Division of Public Water Supplies, 2200 Churchill Road,
IEPA, Springfield, Illinois 62706, within 30 days of receipt of
each analysis. At the option of Petitioner, the quarterly
samples may be analyzed when collected. The running average of
the four quarterly sample results shall be reported to the above
address within 30 days of receipt of the result of time analysis
of most recent quarterly sample.
b) For Wells 2, 4 and 7, during the term of this
variance, Petitioner shall collect quarterly samples from each
well, and shall analyze them when collected by a certified
laboratory as described in a) above, to determine the
concentrations of radium-226 and radium—228 in each well. The
results of these analyses, in addition to the average daily
pumpage for each well, shall be reported to the Agency at the
address in a) above, within 30 days of receipt of result of the
analysis.
4. Petitioner shall take all reasonable short—term measures
to minimize the level of radium in its finished water.
Specifically, Petitioner shall minimize its use of Well 2 to the
maximum extent feasible. Within two months of this grant of
variance, the Petitioner shall report to the Agency at the
address in paragraph 3, above, its determination as to the
feasibility of blending Wells 3 and 7, and allowing Wells 4,5 and
6 to pump directly to the distribution system. If feasible, this
system shall be initiated expeditiously as an interim measure and
continued as long as peak hourly demand is satisfied.
72-44
—7—
5. Within three months of the grant of the variance, if the
blending program described in paragraph 4 above is not determined
to be a feasible long—term compliance option,
a) The Petitioner shall secure professional
assistance (either from present staff or an
outside consultant) in investigating long—term
compliance options (including costs), and
including the possibility and feasibility of
achieving compliance by blending water from
its shallow well(s) with that of its deep
well(s) and with Lake Michigan water, or
purchase of water from another source.
b)
Within seven months of the grant of
the
variance, the Petitioner shall have selected a
compliance plan after 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 have prepared a detailed
Compliance Report showing how compliance shall
be achieved with the shortest practicable
time.
c. This Compliance Report shall be submitted
within nine months of the grant of this
variance to IEPA, DPWS.
6. Pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. 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.
Adrn. Code 602.105(a) Standards of Issuance and 35 Ill. Adm. Code
602.106(b) Restricted Status, as it relates to
the combined
radium—226 and radiurn—228 standard.
7. 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 s~tandard in question. The notice shall state the
average radium—226 and radium—228 content of samples taken since
the last notice period during which samples were taken.
8. That within forty—five days of the date of this Order,
Petitioner shall execute and forward to Wayne Wiemerslage,
Enforcement Programs, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
72-45
—8—
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.
I, (We),
___________________________,
having read the
Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, in PCB 86—75,
dated August 14, 1986, understanding 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.
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. Gun’n, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
72-46